Skip to main content

Full text of "Minutes"

See other formats


DOCUMENTS DEPARTME- 







San Francisco Public Library 

5jU floor 



REFERENCE BOOK 

Not to be taken from the Library 



3 1223 06010 6318 



iw 




City and Countv ofjSan Franciscr chvhbii 

.. .. .„. [AH Committeesl 

Meeting Minutes R n ,, arnm „ . i, 

6 Government Document Section 

Finance and Labor Committee Main Library 

Members: Supervisors I. eland Yee, Sue Merman, Tom 
Clerk: Mary Red 



Wednesday, November 01, 2000 



10:00 AM 
Regular Meeting 



City Hall, Room 263 



Members Present: Leland Y. Yee, Sue Bierman, Tom Ammiano. 



Meeting Convened 



001557 



The meeting convened 10:04 a.m. 



DOCUMENTS DEPT\ 

NOV - 3 2000 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



[Visitacion Valley Interim Controls) 
Supervisors Ammiano, Bierman, Yee 

Resolution imposing Interim Zoning Controls for a period of eighteen months (18) by applying the zoning 
controls applicable in NC-3 Districts that are contained in Municipal Code Part II, Chapter II (Planning Code) 
Section 712 to Assessor's Blocks 5087, 5100, and 5101, and Block 5099, Lot 14, by limiting the maximum 
non-residential use size to fifty thousand (50,000) square feet on Assessor's Blocks 5087, 5100 and 5101 and 
Block 5099, Lot 14, and in the adjacent NC-3 District located on Bayshore Boulevard and bounded by Arleta 
Avenue on the north and the terminus of the City and County of San Francisco to the south; and adopting 
findings pursuant to Planning Code Section 101.1 

(Pursuant to Planning Code Section 306.7(g), notice of time and place of hearing must be published and posted 

not less than nine days prior to date of hearing) 

8/28/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee 8/30/00-Transmitted to Director of Planning for environmental 

review. 

10/10/00 - From Planning Department, Certificate of Determination of Exclusion from Environmental Review. 

10/16/00, SUBSTITUTED Supervisor Ammiano submitted a substitute resolution bearing new title 

10/16/00, ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Supervisor Ammiano ; Dennis Tsai, Municipal Railway: Edward Steward. 

Transportation Authority: Paul Lord, Planning Department: Fran Martin, Visitacion Valley Planning 

Alliance; Robert McCarthy; Jerry Hill; Jeanette Tolentino Hill; Amande Jawa, League of Conservation 

Voters; Mary Drobisch, Fredericksen Hardware; Bert Bettis; Jane Morrison. S. F. Tomorrow; Denise Minter; 

Anne Seeman; Howard Strassner, Sierra Club; Ena Aguirre; Rick Karp, Cole Hardware; Linda Richardson; 

Linda McKay; Stephen Cornell, Merchant's Association; Larry Fleming, Visitacion Valley Job Education 

Training Program; Saul Bloom, Art Ecology; Oz Erickson, Emerald Fund; Sophie Maxwell. Blanccti 

Reynolds; Charles Hargrave, Housing Conservation and Development Corp.; Will Weihler; Paul Hatchet . 

Solid Waste Management Program; Mel Washington. Bayview Merchant's Association. Victor Romero; Ken 

Lockwood; William Collier; Sam Perez: Merridith Wingate; Jim Lyon: Jennifer Berman. San Francisco 

Organizing Project; Richard Christiani; Julie Kavanagh. Executive Director. Visitacion Valley Community 

Center; Christine Galvez. 

Amendment of the Whole changing controls to 12 months and increasing the maximum non-residential use size 

to 65.000 sq.ft. 

AMENDED, AN AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE BEARING NEW TITLE. 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 10:12 AM on 1I/2A>0 



finance and Labor Committee Meeting Minutes \mimtnr I. 2000 

Resolution imposing Interim Zoning Controls for a period of twelve months ( 12 ) by applying the zoning 
controls applicable in NC-3 Districts that are contained in Municipal Code Part II. Chapter II (Planning ( ode) 
Section 712 to Assessor's Blocks 5087, 5100, and 5101, and Block 5099, Lot 14. by limiting the maximum 
non-residential use size to sixty-five thousand (65,000) square feet on Assessor's Blocks 508". 5100 and 5101 
and Block 5099, Lot 14. and in the adjacent NC-3 District located on Bayshore Boulevard and bounded b> 
Arleta Avenue on the north and the terminus of the City and County of San Francisco to the south, and 
adopting findings pursuant to Planning Code Section 101.1 
RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



001851 [Sheriffs Cash Revolving Fund] 

Ordinance amending Section 10.164 of the San Francisco Administrative Code to increase the Sheriffs Cash 
Revolving Fund from 53,000 to $8,000. (Sheriff) 
10/18/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee 
Heard in Committee. Speaker Jean Mariani. Sheriffs Department 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



001852 [Sheriff Inmate Welfare Fund| 

Ordinance amending Section 10.164-1 of the San Francisco Administrative Code to decrease the Sheriff 
Inmate Welfare Fund from $10,000 to $5,000. (Sheriff) 
10/18/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee 
Heard in Committee. Speaker: Jean Mariani. Sheriff's Department 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



001853 [Sheriff Transportation Funds| 

Ordinance amending Section 10.164-2 of the San Francisco Administrative Code, thereby eliminating the 
Cash Revolving Fund of $20,000 for Sheriff Transportation. (Sheriff) 
10/18/00. RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee 
Heard in Committee Speaker: Jean Mariani. Sheriffs Department 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



001849 |Lease of property at 30 Van Ness Avenue for the Sheriffs Department Backgrounds I nit currentlx 
located at 555-7th Street] 

Resolution authorizing the lease of 1439 sq. ft. at 30 Van Ness Avenue for the Sheriffs Department. (Real 
Estate Department) 

10/18/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee 
Heard in Committee. Speaker: Jean Mariani. Sheriffs Department 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee. Bierman, Ammiano 



City and County of San Francisco 2 Printed at 10:12 AM on U.2AW 



Finance and Labor Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



November I, 2000 



001850 [Establishing trial parking rates as permanent parking rates for City administered garages and metered 
facilities) 

Resolution approving trial parking rates as permanent parking rates at the Civic Center Garage, the Fifth &. 
Mission Garage, the Golden Gateway Garage, the Moscone Center Garage, the Performing Arts Garage, the 
Polk-Bush Garage, the St. Mary's Square Garage, the Sutter-Stockton Garage, the Union Square Garage, the 
Pierce Street Garage, the California & Sterner Lot and the 22nd & Geary Lot (the "Garages"). (Parking and 
Traffic Department) 

10/18/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Har\*ey Rose, Budget Analyst; Ronald Szeto, Depun Director. Parking 
Authority. 

RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



001854 [MOU, Amendment No. 1 - Building Inspectors Association, Local 22] 

Ordinance implementing Amendment No. 1 to the 1997-2001 Memorandum of Understanding between the 
Building Inspectors Association, Local 22 and the City and County of San Francisco by appending the 
following list of past practices pursuant to Article V.C. of the Memorandum of Understanding. (Human 
Resources Department) 

10/18/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 
Heard in Committee. Speaker: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



001855 [MOU, Amendment No. 1 - Pile Drivers, Divers, Carpenters. Bridge Wharf & Dock Buildings. Local 
Union No. 34] 

Ordinance implementing Amendment No. 1 to the 1997-2001 Memorandum of Understanding between the 
Pile Drivers, Divers, Carpenters, Bridge, Wharf & Dock Builders, Local Union No. 34 and the City and 
County of San Francisco by appending the following list of past practices pursuant to Article V.C. of the 
Memorandum of Understanding. (Human Resources Department) 
10/18/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 
Heard in Committee. Speaker: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



001856 [MOU, Amendment No. 1 - United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers. Local No. 40| 

Ordinance implementing Amendment No. 1 to the 1997-2001 Memorandum of Understanding between the 
United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers, Local Union No. 40 and the City and County of 
San Francisco by appending the following list of past practices pursuant to Article V.C. of the Memorandum 
of Understanding. (Human Resources Department) 

10/18/00. RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee 10/26/00 - From Dcpt of Human Resources, substitute MOU, 
providing for clerical correction under Parking-Port Section changing the word "Pile Drivers" to "Roofers " 

Heard in Committee Speaker: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 1 0:1 2 A M on I1/2M 

4 47608 SFPL : I CONO 

02/15/02 72 



finance and Labor Committee Meeting Minutes \<>venihcr I. 21)1)0 



001857 |MOU. Amendment No. 2 - Glaziers. Local Union No. 718] 

Ordinance implementing Amendment No. 2 to the 1997-2001 Memorandum of Understanding between the 
Glaziers, Local Union No. 718 and the City and County of San Francisco by appending the following list of 
past practices pursuant to Article V.C. of the Memorandum of Understanding. (Human Resources Department i 
10/18/00. RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee 
Heard in Committee Speaker: Harvey Rose. Budget Analyst 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



001858 [MOU, Amendment No. 1 - Supervising Probation Officers. Local Union No. 3| 

Ordinance implementing Amendment No. 1 to the 1997-2001 Memorandum of Understanding between the 
Supervising Probation Officers. Local Union No. 3 and the City and County of San Francisco by appending 
the following list of past practices pursuant to Article V.C. of the Memorandum of Understanding (Human 
Resources Department) 

10/18/00. RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee 
Heard in Committee. Speaker: Haney Rose. Budget Analyst 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



001859 [MOU. Amendment No. 2 - Automotive Machinists. Local 1414| 

Ordinance implementing Amendment No. 2 to the 1997-2001 Memorandum of Understanding between the 
Automotive Machinists. Local 414 and the City and County of San Francisco by appending the following list 
of past practices pursuant to Article V.C. of the Memorandum of Understanding (Human Resources 
Department) 

10/18/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee 
Heard in Committee. Speaker Haney Rose. Budget Analyst 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



001860 [MOU, Amendment No. 3 - Laborers. Local Union No. 261 1 

Ordinance implementing Amendment No. 3 to the 1997-2001 Memorandum of Understanding between the 
Laborers. Local Union No. 261 and the City and County of San Francisco by appending the following list of 
past practices pursuant to Article V.C. of the Memorandum of Understanding. (Human Resources Department) 
10/18/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee 
Heard in Committee. Speaker Han-ey Rose. Budget Analyst 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman. Ammiano 



City and County of San Francisco 4 Printed at 10:12 AM on 1 l.QAfO 



Finance and Labor Committee Meeting Minutes November I, 20011 



990091 [Interdepartmental Jurisdictional Transfer) 

Supervisors Bierman, Newsom. Leno. Ammiano. Becerril 

Ordinance transferring jurisdiction over certain real property located at Drumm Street, between Clay and 

Washington Streets, described generally as Assessor's Block 202. Lots 6. 14 and a portion of 15. excluding the 

subsurface thereof, and a portion of Assessor's Block 203, Lot 14. from the Department of Public Works to the 

Recreation and Park Commission: and providing that no building, improvement or structure may be 

constructed on the surfaces of such parcels and adjoining Assessor's Block 202. Lot 18. 

1/19/99, ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

2/10/99, CONTINUED Heard in Committee Speakers: Eula Walters Continued to February 24. 1 999 

2/24/99, CONTINUED. Continued to March 3. 1999 

3/3/99, RECOMMENDED. Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose. Budget Analyst; Supervisor Bierman; Supervisor Ammiano 

In Support: Ernestine Weiss. Dave Burnett; Barbara Kerwick: Jane Morrison; Carolyn Blair. Eula Walters; Isabel Wade: Herb Lembcke. 

Lynne Juarez 

Oppose: Nan McGuire. Friends of Tule Elk Park. Paul Growald; Gail Getty; Marion Page; Diana Rogers. Walter Miller. Donald Green. 

Laural Heights Association; Martin Rosen. Betty Landis; Ron Miguel; Jan Lassetter, Peter Boyer, Simon Hurd. S F League of Urban 

Gardners; John Norwood; Peter Winkelstein, SPUR Urban Affairs Committee; Dee Dee Workman, S F Beautiful; Howard Strassner. 

Sierra Club; Ham Overstreet, Architect for Butterfly Discovery Park Project 

3/8/99, RE-REFERRED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

12/28/99, FILED PURSUANT TO RULE 5.40. 10/5/99, sponsor requests that item remain on pending until results of an environmental 

impact study on this property is received. 

10/23/00, ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee 

10/23/00, REACTIVATED PURSUANT TO RULE 5.25. Supervisor Bierman requested this matter be reactivated 

Heard in Committee Speakers: Supervisor Bierman; Ted Lakey, Deputy City Attorney; Alec Bash, Port of S. 

F.; Leslie Bujford. Planning Department; Tony DeLucchi, Real Estate Department; Supervisor Ammiano; 

Paul Growald, Alice Barkley, Attorney; Supervisor Becerril; Herb Lembke; Harry Overstreet; Laurie Adams; 

Alice Carnes. Chinese International School; Isabel Wade; James Chappell. SPUR; Clinton Stockwell; Bonnie 

Wood; Peter Boyer; Randy Hayes; Erika Lovejoy; Eula Walters; Jane Morrison; Will Parish; Ron Miguel; 

Pinky Kirchner; Jocelyn Cohen, S. F. Tree Council; Bob Coleman, Save Ferry Park; Soo Wooja Im; Mike 

DeNunzio; Lawrence Tenney; Susan Tibbon; Aaron Peskin; Norman Rolfe; Betty McGovern; David Graves. 

Kids in Parks; Howard Strassner, Sierra Club; Dave Snyder, Bicycle Coalition; Angela Chung; Barbara 

Deutsch. Community Gardens for Butterflies; Esther Woeste. President, Golden Gateway Tenants Association; 

Christine Jeck, Save the Bay: David Miles; Jeanette Black; Emile Young; Arthur Chang; Jim Collins; Darin 

Ow-Wing. Community Educational Services; Maria Matson; Antonette Miard; Catlin Cartwright; Beatrice 

Laws; Bene Landis; Terry Milne; Bill Wilson; Dave Burnett; Carolyn Blair; Enrique Palacias: Ernestine 

Weiss. 

Amendment of the Whole deleting reference to Port negotiations with developer for the renovation of the Ferry 

Building. 

To Board November 20, 2000; Supervisor Yee dissenting in committee. 

AMENDED, AN AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE BEARING SAME TITLE. 

RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Bierman, Ammiano 

Noes: 1 - Yee 



ADJOURNMENT 



The meeting adjourned at 1:35 p.m. 



City and County of San Francisco 5 Printed at 10:12 <\t on I12M 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2013 



http://archive.org/details/6minutes2000sanf 



'i/ec 



CITY AND COUNTY 




[Budget Analyst Report] 
Susan Horn 

Main Library-Govt. Doc. Section 



OFSANFRANcisq9ocUMENTS DEPT. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 



OCT 3 1 2000 

SAN FRANCISCO 



PUBLIC LIBRARY 

1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 554-7642 



FAX (415) 252-0461 



October 27, 2000 



TO: ^Finance and Labor Committee 

FROM: Budget Analyst 

SUBJECT: November 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Items 2, 3. and 4 - Files 00-1851. 00-1852. and 00-1853 



Department: 
Items: 



Description: 



Sheriffs Department 

Item 2 - File 00-1851: Ordinance amending Section 
10.164 of the San Francisco Administrative Code to 
increase the Sheriffs Cash Revolving Fund from 
$3,000 to $8,000. 

Item 3 - File 00-1852: Ordinance amending Section 
10.164-1 of the San Francisco Administrative Code 
to decrease the Sheriffs Inmate Welfare Cash 
Revolving Fund from $10,000 to $5,000. 

Item 4 - File 00-1853: Ordinance repealing Section 
10.164-2 of the San Francisco Administrative Code, 
thereby eliminating the Sheriffs Transportation 
Cash Revolving Fund in the amount of $20,000. 

The three proposed ordinances are in response to 
recommendations made by the Audits Division of 
the Controller's Office on May 4, 1999 (for File 00- 
1853) and August 7, 1999 (for Files 00-1851 and 00- 
1852), after the completion of its audits of three 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Cash Revolving Funds administered by the 
Sheriffs Department. 

File 00-1851: This ordinance would increase the 
Sheriffs Cash Revolving Fund balance 
authorization by $5,000, from $3,000 to $8,000. 
The Controller's auditors recommended this 
increase on the basis that $3,000 is insufficient to 
meet the Sheriffs Department's current operational 
needs. 

File 00-1852: This ordinance would reduce the 
Sheriffs Inmate Welfare Cash Revolving Fund 
balance authorization by $5,000, from $10,000 to 
$5,000. The Controller's auditors recommended 
this reduction on the basis that the Sheriffs 
Department did not use, or require, the full 
authorized balance. 

File 00-1853: This ordinance would delete 
reference to the Sheriffs Transportation Cash 
Revolving Fund in the Administrative Code 
thereby eliminating that Fund in the amount of 
$20,000. The Sheriff closed that Fund account and 
returned the money to the Controller's Office on 
FebruaryJ,6,-2000. 



Cumulatively, the three subject ordinances would 
reduce the total Cash Revolving Fund balance of 
the Sheriffs Department by $20,000, from $33,000 
to $13,000. While the subject ordinance under File 
00-1851 would increase the Sheriffs Cash 
Revolving Fund by $5,000, the subject ordinance 
under File 00-1852 would decrease the Sheriffs 
Inmate Welfare Cash Revolving Fund by $5,000, 
and the subject ordinance under File 00-1853 
would eliminate the Sheriffs Transportation Cash 
Revolving Fund of $20,000. 



Comments: File 00-1851 



1. The Sheriffs Cash Revolving Fund is used by 
the Sheriffs Department to pay for minor office and 
maintenance expenses. In July of 1997, an 
ordinance amending Article XV, Chapter 10 of the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

2 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Administrative Code revised tbe authorized 
balance of various departmental Cash Revolving 
Funds (File 97-97-27). The authorized balance of 
the Sheriffs Cash Revolving Fund was reduced 
from $8,000 to $3,000. According to Ms. Jean 
Mariani of the Sheriffs Department, this reduction 
was part of a general reduction of Cash Revolving 
Funds performed across City Departments at that 
time in response to the fraudulent handling of a 
Cash Revolving Fund in another Department. As 
of March 28, 2000, the Controller's auditors 
determined that the Sheriffs Cash Revolving Fund 
balance exceeded the reduced authorized balance of 
$3,000 by $5,000. However, the Controller's 
auditors determined that the $3,000 authorized 
balance was insufficient to meet the Sheriffs 
Department's operational needs. For the 12 
months between April of 1999 and March of 2000, 
the Sheriffs Department requested replenishment 
of the Sheriffs Cash Revolving Fund 139 times in a 
total amount of $45,414, or approximately $3,785 
each month. Therefore, the Controller's auditors 
recommended that an $8,000 authorized balance 
would allow the Sheriffs Department to manage its 
Sheriffs Cash Revolving Fund expenses more 
efficiently. Ms. Mariani states that the Controller's 
auditors determined the amount of $8,000 on the 
basis of doubling the peak rate of expenditure of 
$4,000 per month so that the Sheriffs Department 
would only need to replenish its Sheriffs Cash 
Revolving Fund once a month on average. 

2. The Controller's auditors identified insufficient 
segregation of incompatible duties of the Sheriffs 
Cash Revolving Fund custodian when the Sheriffs 
Department allowed that custodian to also conduct 
bank reconciliations of the Sheriffs Cash Revolving 
Fund bank account. Ms. Mariani states that the 
Sheriffs Department has instituted a two-tier 
counter-signature and review process to ensure 
appropriate segregation of duties. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

3 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

File 00-1852 



3. The Sheriffs Inmate Welfare Revolving Fund is 
used to pay for minor inmate-related expenses. 
The Controller's auditors recommended that this 
Fund's $10,000 authorized balance be reduced to 
$5,000 on the basis that the Sheriffs Department 
did not use, or require, the full authorized balance. 
During calendar year 1999, the Sheriffs 
Department spent $25,900, or an approximate 
average of $2,158 each month. The Controller's 
auditors determined a decreased authorized 
balance of $5,000 on the basis of doubling the peak 
rate of expenditure of $2,500 per month so that the 
Sheriffs Department would only need to replenish 
its Sheriffs Inmate Welfare Cash Revolving Fund 
once a month. 

4. According to Ms. Mariani, the Sheriffs 
Department will return any funds in excess of 
$5,000 to the Controller's Office following Board of 
Supervisors approval of the subject ordinance. 

File 00-1853 

5. The Sheriffs Transportation Cash Revolving 
Fund was designed to pay for travel expenses 
related to transporting prisoners held m custody by 
the City and County of San Francisco. This Fund 
has had no activity since 1998 when the Sheriffs 
Department contracted with an independent 
agency, Tri-County Extradition Service, to 
transport prisoners as needed on a more cost- 
effective basis. That agency is paid directly from 
warrants issued by the Controller's Office, rather 
than through the Sheriffs Transportation Cash 
Revolving Fund. Therefore, the Sheriff closed the 
Sheriffs Transportation Cash Revolving Fund 
account and returned the money to the Controller's 
Office on February 16, 2000. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed ordinances. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

4 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Item 5 - File 00-1849 



Department: 



Item: 



Location: 



Real Estate Division (RED) 
Sheriffs Department 

Resolution authorizing a new lease of 1,439 square feet at 30 
Van Ness Avenue to be used as office space for the Sheriffs 
Department. 

30 Van Ness Avenue 



Purpose of Lease: Rental of office space 

Lessor: Herbst Foundation, a non-profit organization 



Lessee: 

No. of Sq. Ft. and 
Cost Per Month: 



Annual Cost: 

Utilities and 
Services Provided 
by Lessor: 



Term of Lease: 



City and County of San Francisco 



1,439 square feet at $4,197.08 per month, or approximately 
$2.92 per square foot per month 

$50,365 ($35 per square foot) 



The Landlord provides (a) janitorial and security guard 
services, (b) heating, air conditioning, and ventilation during 
normal business hours, (c) passenger elevator service, (d) 
electricity for normal business use, including use of personal 
computers and other office machines, and (e) water. 

January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2005 (5 years) 



Right of Renewal: Two additional terms of 5 years each 



Source of Funds: 



Description: 



Funds appropriated in the FY 2000-2001 Sheriffs 
Department Budget, as approved by the Board of Supervisors 

The Sheriffs Department currently has 45 employees 
occupying 7,668 square feet of office space at 555 7 th Street. 
The City has purchased the facility at 555 7 th Street in 
accordance with the prior authorization from the Board of 
Supervisors for the City to issue Certificates of Participation 
to finance the acquisition of the facility (File 99-0152). 
According to Mr. Charles Dunn of RED, the City's operating 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

5 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

and debt service costs for the Sheriffs Department portion of 
the office at 555 7 th Street is approximately $26.40 per 
square foot per year or $2.20 per square foot per month and a 
total cost of $202,435 annually ($16,870 monthly). The 
Sheriffs Department is now proposing to move its 
Backgrounds Unit, which consists of seven existing 
employees at the 555 7 th Street location, to new leased space 
at 30 Van Ness Avenue. The proposed lease at 30 Van Ness 
Avenue would be for 1,439 square feet of space at an annual 
rent of $50,365 or $35.00 per square foot per year, which is 
$2.92 per square foot per month. The proposed new lease 
would reduce significant overcrowding at the Department's 
current facility at 555 7 th Street, according to Ms. Vicki 
Hennessy of the Sheriffs Department. Presently, 45 
employees occupy 7,668 square feet of space at 555 7 th Street, 
or an average of 170.4 square feet per employee, including 
common areas and two training rooms. The proposed new 
lease would increase the average number of square feet per 
employee for the remaining 38 employees (45 less 7) at the 
555 7 th Street facility from approximately 170 to 202 (7,668 
square feet divided by the remaining 38 employees). The 
proposed new lease would provide 1,439 square feet of space 
for the Sheriffs Department at 30 Van Ness, which would 
provide an average of 206 square feet per employee, 
including a reception area and interview room, for the seven 
employees that presently staff the Sheriffs Department's 
Background Unit. 

Comments: 1. According to Mr. Dunn, the proposed rental rate of $2.92 

per square foot per month represents fair market value. 

2. According to Ms. Hennessy, the Sheriffs Department is 
currently experiencing significant overcrowded conditions at 
555 7 th Street. Ms. Hennessy states that because of these 
overcrowded conditions, the Sheriffs Department is forced to 
have some employees use desks located in hallways. Ms. 
Hennessy further states that the Department has been 
attempting to lease additional space to alleviate such 
overcrowded conditions for over \Vi years. According to Ms. 
Hennessy, the proposed new lease would result in a 
significant improvement over the Department's current 
overcrowded conditions. The Attachment is a memorandum 
provided by Ms. Hennessy explaining the need for the 
proposed new space to be leased at 30 Van Ness. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

6 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



3. In addition to tbe proposed annual rent of $50,365 to 
lease 1,439 square feet of space at 30 Van Ness Avenue, the 
City would pay $14,000 toward the construction of tenant 
improvements, which would consist of construction of the 
interior portion of the space, which is at present unimproved. 
According to Mr. Dunn, the landlord would expend 
approximately $70,000 for tenant improvements. Thus, the 
City's contribution of $14,000 would represent a 
reimbursement to the landlord of approximately 20 percent 
of the total cost of the tenant improvements. 

According to Ms. Hennessy, the annual rent and operations 
costs, as well as the one-time tenant improvement costs, 
would be paid from funds in the Sheriffs FY 2000-01 budget, 
as previously appropriated by the Board of Supervisors. 

4. According to Mr. Dunn, after December 31, 2001, which 
would be the end of the first year of the lease, in addition to 
the annual base rent of $50,365, the Sheriff would incur 
additional costs as follows: 

(a) Increased expenses for Property Taxes, insurance, and 
other related costs that affect the entire building at 30 
Van Ness. Such costs would be equivalent to 0.81 percent 
of those increased expenses (1,439 square feet divided by 
178,128 total rentable square feet in the 30 Van Ness 
building). 

(b) Increased costs for office expenses. Such costs would be 
equivalent to 0.9 percent of these increased expenses 
(1,439 square feet divided by 160,768 of net rentable office 
space). Such increased costs would include janitorial and 
security guard services, electricity and other increased 
operating costs. 

Mr. Dunn reports that RED does not currently have 
estimates for the costs described in (a) and (b) above. 
However, Ms. Hennessy estimates that such costs would be 
absorbed in the Sheriffs annual budget. 

Mr. Dunn states that this provision is standard, and appears 
in approximately 99 percent of all office leases facilitated by 
RED. 

5. After expiration of the subject lease on December 31, 2005, 
the City would have the option to renew the lease for two 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

7 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



additional terms of five years each. Under the initial 
renewal period of 5 years, on January 1, 2006, the annual 
base rent would be adjusted upward by the ratio of the 
percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The 
base rent could not be adjusted downward if the new CPI 
were less than the beginning year CPI. Under the second 
renewal period of five years, beginning on January 1, 2011, 
the City would pay a rental rate equal to 95 percent of the 
prevailing market rate at that time. 1 

6. As noted above, this proposed new lease would not result 
in a reduction of existing office space for the Sheriff, but 
rather would alleviate overcrowded conditions in existing 
office space at 555 7 th Street by transferring seven employees 
of the Sheriffs Backgrounds Unit at the 555 7 th Street 
facility to the new proposed lease at the 30 Van Ness facility. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



1 According to the proposed lease agreement, this provision states: (a) that if the parties cannot agree 
as to the prevailing market rate, the two shall attempt to select a commercial real estate agent to 
determine the prevailing market rate, (b) that if the two parties are unable to agree to a single agent, 
than each party shall select their own agent, and those agents shall attempt to agree upon a 
prevailing market rate, (c) that if the two agents are unable to agree upon a prevailing market rate, 
those agents shall select a third agent to decide the prevailing market rate, and (d) that if the two 
agents cannot decide upon a third agent, the prevailing market rate shall be determined by the 
commercial arbitration rules of the American Arbitration Association. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

8 



Attachment 



City and County of San Francisco 



OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF 



MicJiaci Hennessey 
SHERIFF 




Mr. Daley Dunham 

Budget Analyst 

Board of Supervisors 

1390 Market Street, Suite 1025 

San Francisco, CA 94102 



October 26, 2000 



RE: Rental of Space at 30 Van Ness Item # File 00-1849 

Dear Mr. Dunham, 

I write this letter in support of the above noted item scheduled for the November 1, 2000 meeting 
of the Finance and Labor Committee. 

In the last few years the San Francisco Sheriffs Department has grown significantly as we have 
taken on duties once performed by other City entitrties and responded to new State mandates. 
Due to this growth we have been forced to accommodate employees by placing desks in lobbies, 
hallways and areas intended to be classrooms at our location at 555-7* Street We have been 
looking for suitable space for over 1 Vi years and, after a few promising locations did not 
become available, Mr. Charlie Dunn of the Department of Real Estate was able to offer us the 
space at 30 Van Ness. While the space at 30 Van Ness will not address all our current or long 
term needs, it will provide immediate relief to our Backgrounds Unit which consists of seven 
sworn deputy sheriffs. 

Thank you for your efforts on our behalf. If you require any further information, please contact 
me at 554-7225. 



Vicki L. Hennessy / 

Chief Deputy / 

Administration and Courts Division 



ROOM 456, CITY HALL • I DR. CARLTON 3. OOODLZTT PLACE • SAN FRANCISCO. CA. 941 02 
EMAIL ihefiff(SJci..f.«i u • FAX. (41J) 554.7050 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Item 6 - File 00-1850 



Department: 



Item: 



Description: 



Department of Parking and Traffic (DPT) 
Parking Authority 

Resolution approving parking rates on a permanent basis 
at 12 City-owned parking facilities which were previously 
implemented on a trial basis at the Civic Center Garage, 
the Fifth and Mission Garage, the Golden Gateway 
Garage, the Moscone Center Garage, the Performing Arts 
Garage, the Polk-Bush Garage, the St. Mary's Square 
Garage, the Sutter-Stockton Garage, the Union Square 
Garage, the Pierce Street Garage, the California and 
Steiner Lot, and the 22 nd and Geary Lot (the Garages). 
Except for the "Re-opening the Garage Fee," the 
"Damaged Access Card Fee," the extension of some of the 
hours of day time parking rates and various changes to 
other parking fees, the proposed permanent parking rates 
would be identical to the existing parking rates 
implemented by the DPT on a trial basis. 

Both the Parking and Traffic Commission and the 
Parking Authority Commission have oversight 
responsibility of City-owned parking facilities. This 
responsibility includes reviewing the parking rates 
charged at City-owned garages and surface parking lots 
and making recommendations to the Board of Supervisors 
for changes in parking rates. Institution of parking rate 
recommendations on a permanent basis requires approval 
by the Board of Supervisors pursuant to Administrative 
Code Section 17.14. The proposed resolution would adopt 
the parking rates recommended by the Parking and 
Traffic Commission and the Parking Authority 
Commission for 12 City-owned parking facilities at the 
identical rates which had been implemented by the DPT 
on a trial basis except for the introduction of the "Re- 
opening the Garage Fee," the "Damaged Access Card 
Fee," the extension of some of the hours of day time 
parking rates and various changes to other parking fees. 

Mr. Ronald Szeto of the Parking Authority reports that, in 
accordance with Section 17.14 of the Administrative Code, 
the Parking and Traffic Commission and the Parking 
Authority can approve revised parking rates at City 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

parking facilities on a trial basis for a period of up to 180 
days without first obtaining the approval of the Board of 
Supervisors. The existing parking rates for the subject 
facilities were implemented by the DPT on a trial basis in 
August of 1997, November of 1997, August of 1998, 
December of 1999 and April of 2000. On August 15, 2000 
the Parking and Traffic Commission and the Parking 
Authority revised the trial parking rates to be 
implemented on a permanent basis. According to Mr. 
Szeto, the DPT implemented the parking rates on a trial 
basis to meet objectives to reduce traffic, promote short- 
term transient parking, discourage low-occupancy 
commuter parking and increase revenues in City-owned 
parking facilities. 

According to Mr. Szeto, the Garages have a total of 
approximately 9,533 physical parking spaces and 
approximately 3,259 monthly parking space patrons per 
month. 

Comments: 1. Attachment I, provided by the DPT, details the 

proposed parking rates for each of the 12 City-owned 
parking facilities which are identical to the parking rates 
as implemented by the DPT on a trial basis except for the 
introduction of the "Re-opening the Garage Fee," the 
"Damaged Access Card Fee," the extension of some of the 
hours of day time parking rates and various changes to 
other parking fees. 

2. Attachment II, provided by the DPT, is the projected 
parking revenue for FY 2000-2001 and the projected 
parking revenue for 2001-2002 for the subject 12 parking 
facilities. According to Mr. Szeto, the revenue for the 
metered parking lots at the California and Steiner Lot, 
the Pierce Street Garage and the 22 nd and Geary Lot 
fluctuates based on meter theft and the number of broken 
meters. Mr. Szeto further states that in 1999 DPT was 
able to control the high rate of meter theft occurring at 
the California and Steiner Lot and installed electronic 
meters with electronic locks, both of which led to nearly a 
100% increase in gross revenues. Mr. Szeto estimates the 
gross revenue for the FY 2000-2001 and FY 2001-2002 for 
the California and Steiner Lot, the Pierce Street Garage 
and the 22 nd and Geary Lot will be at the same level as 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



the gross revenue for FY 1999-2000 because of the 
possibility of broken meters and/or meter theft. Mr. Szeto 
estimates that the parking rates for all twelve parking 
facilities will result in total gross revenues of 
approximately $50,804,531 for FY 2000-2001 and 
approximately $51,214,531 for FY 2001-2002 compared to 
a total of $47,233,245 of parking revenues collected in FY 
1999-2000. 

3. The parking rates commenced on a trial basis in 
December 1999 for the Stockton Street, Golden Gateway, 
Civic Center, Union Square, Polk-Bush and Performing 
Arts garages. The parking rates at 5 th and Mission, St. 
Mary's and Moscone Center garages commenced on a trial 
basis in April of 2000 and the parking rates at the 22 nd 
and Geary Lot commenced on a trial basis in August of 
1998. According to Mr. Szeto, the parking rates for the 
California and Steiner Lot and the Pierce Street Garage 
have been in place on a trial basis since August and 
November of 1997, respectively. 

4. Mr. Szeto advises that carpool rates instituted during 
the trial periods were designed to encourage carpooling 
and to open up more parking spaces presently used by 
commuters for increased short term parking. To qualify 
as a carpool there must be three or more occupants in the 
vehicle. 

5. According to Mr. Szeto, the "Re-opening the Garage 
Fee" was instituted during the trial period for the garages 
not open 24 hours per day to recoup the garage operator's 
costs of re-opening the garage during non-operating hours 
in order to accommodate persons attempting to retrieve 
their vehicles. The fee will not be paid to the City but to 
the garage operator. The five garages not open 24 hours 
per day are the Civic Center Garage, the Golden Gateway 
Garage, the Moscone Center Garage, the Performing Arts 
Garage and the Polk-Bush Garage. 

6. As noted above, the parking rates implemented on a 
trial basis at the California and Steiner Lot, the Pierce 
Street Garage and the 22 nd and Geary Lot facilities have 
been in place since August 1997, November 1997 and 
August 1998 respectively. This exceeds the 180-day 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

maximum period under which parking rates can be 
implemented on a trial basis by the DPT, without first 
obtaining approval from the Board of Supervisors, by 
approximately 925 days, 821 days and 547 days for the 
three respective parking facilities. Attachment III, 
provided by Mr. Szeto, is a memo explaining why the DPT 
did not adhere to the 180-day maximum, as stipulated in 
the Administrative Code, of implementing parking rates 
on a trial basis, without first obtaining Board of 
Supervisors approval. 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy decision for 

the Board of Supervisors 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



CIVIC CENTER GARAGE 



Attachment ] 
Page 1 of 10 



Trar 


isient Parking 


Dav Rates (Until 7:00 pm) 


0.0 


- 1.0 


Hour 


1.0 


- 2.0 


Hours 


2.0 


- 3.0 


Hours 


3.0 


- 4.0 


Hours 


4.0 


- 5.0 


Hours 


5.0 


- 6.0 


Hours 


6.0 


- 7.0 


Hours 


Lost Ticket 




Special Event 


Motorcycle 




Student 




Bicycle 





Evening Rates (7:00 PM until Closing) 
0.0 - 1.0 Hour 
1.0 - 2.0 Hours 
2.0 - 3.0 Hours 
3.0 - 4.0 Hours 

Monthly Parking 

Regular 

Resident 

Motorcycle 

Government 

City Departments 

Carpool 

Miscellaneous Charges 

Late Monthly Payments 
Lost Access Card 
Damaged Access Card 
Access Card Deposit 
Re-opening Garage Fee 







Proposed 


Original 


Trial 


Permanent 


Parking 


Parking 


Parking 


Rates 


Rates 


Rates 


1.00 


1.50 


1.50 


2.00 


3.00 


3.00 


3.25 


4.50 


4.50 


4.50 


6.00 


6.00 


6.00 


8.00 


8.00 


7.50 


10.00 


10.00 


9.00 


12.00 


12.00 


13.50 


18.00 


18.00 


5.00 


8.00 


8.00 


1.00 


1.00 


1.00 


4.50 


5.00 


5.00 


0.25 


Free 


Free 


1.00 


1.50 


1.50 


2.00 


3.00 


3.00 


3.25 


4.50 


4.50 


4.50 


6.00 


6.00^ 


125.00 


156.25 


156.25 


90.00 


90.00 


90.00 


20.00 


25.00 


25.00 


125.00 


125.00 


125.00 


N/A 


75.00 


75.00 


N/A 


75.00 


75.00 


N/A 


25.00 


25.00 


25.00 


25.00 


25.00 


N/A 


N/A 


25.00 


25.00 


50.00 


50.00 


N/A 


N/A 


50.00 



Exhibit A 



Attachment ' 1 
Page 2 of 



ITJ 



FIFTH & MISSION GARAGE 









Proposed 




Original 


Trial 


Permanent 




Parking 


Parking 


Parking 


Transient Parkinq 


Rates 


Rates 


Rates 


0.0 - 1.0 Hour 


1.50 


2.00 


2.00 


1.0 - 2.0 Hours 


3.00 


3.00 


3.00 


2.0 - 3.0 Hours 


5.00 


5.00 


5.00 


3.0 - 4.0 Hours 


7.00 


7.00 


7.00 


4.0 - 5.0 Hours 


9.00 


10.00 


10.00 


5.0 - 6.0 Hours 


12.00 


13.00 


13.00 


6.0 - 7.0 Hours 


13.00 


16.00 


16.00 


7.0 - 24 Hours 


13.00 


18.00 


18.00 


Lost Ticket 


13.00 


18.00 


18.00 


Motorcycle 


1.00 


3.00 


3.00 


Validation (S1.00 off; Book of 100) 


50.00 


50.00 


50.00 


Monthly Parkinq 








Random 


150.00 


200.00 


200.00 


Reserved Area 


175.00 


225.00 


225.00 


Carpool 


N/A 


100.00 


100.00 


Miscellaneous Charaes 








Late Monthly Payments 


N/A 


N/A 


25.00 


Lost Access Card 


25.00 


25.00 


25.00 


Damage Access Card 


25.00 


25.00 


25.00 


Access Card Deposit 


N/A 


N/A 


50.00 



Exhibits 



GOLDEN GATEWAY GARAGE 



Attachment I 
Page 3 of 10 



Proposed 

Original Trial Permanent 

Parkinig Parking Parking 

Transient Parking Rates Rates Rates 

Day Rates Until 6:00 PM 5:00 PM 7:00 PM 

0.0 - 0.5 Hour 3.00 2.00 2.00 

0.5 - 1.0 Hours 3.00 4.00 4.00 

1.0 - 1.5 Hours 6.00 6.00 6.00 

1.5 - 2.0 Hours 6.00 8.00 8.00 

2.0 - 2.5 Hours 9.00 10.00 10.00 

2.5 - 3.0 Hours 9.00 12.00 12.00 

3.0 - 3.5 Hours 12.00 14.00 14.00 

3.5 - 4.0 Hours 12.00 16.00 16.00 

4.0 - 4.5 Hours 15.00 18.00 18.00 

4.5 - 5.0 Hours 15.00 20.00 20.00 

5.0 - 5.5 Hours - 18.00 24.00 24.00 

5.5 - 6.0+ Hours 18.00 24.00 24.00 

24 Hour Maximum 24.00 29.00 29.00 

Lost Ticket 24.00 29.00 29.00 

Early Bird 12.00 18.00 18.00 

Motorcycle 3.00 3.00 3.00 

Shuttle Flat Rate (Weekends Only) N/A 2.00 2.00 

Evening Rates After 6:00 PM 5:00 PM 5:00 PM 

Flat Rate 4.00 5.00 5.00 
Day rate does not -apply when 
entering after 5:00 PM. 



Monthly Parking 

Regular 

Motorcycle 

Government 

Carpool 

Miscellaneous Charges 

Late Monthly Payments 
Lost Access Card 
Damaged Access Card 
Access Card Deposit 
Re-opening Garage Fee 



260.00 


310.00 


310.00 


50.00 


50.00 


50.00 


208.00 


248.00 


248.00 


N/A 


175.00 


175.00 


N/A 


25.00 


25.00 


50.00 


25.00 


25.00 


N/A 


N/A 


25.00 


25.00 


50.00 


50.00 


N/A 


N/A 


50.00 



Exhibit C 



MOSCONE CENTER GARAGE 



Attachment I 
Page 4 of 10 



Proposed 



Transient Parking 

0.0 - 1.0 Hour 
1.0 - 2.0 Hours 
2.0 - 3.0 Hours 
3.0 - 4.0 Hours 
4.0 - 5.0 Hours 
5.0 - 6.0 Hours 
6.0 - 7.0 Hours 
7.0 - 24 Hours 
24 Hour Maximum 
Lost Ticket 
Early Bird 
Special Event 

Monthly Parking 

Regular 
Carpool 

Miscellaneous Charges 

Late Monthly Payments 
Lost Access Card 
Damaged Card • 
Access Card Deposit 
Re-opening Garage Fee 



Original 


Trial 


Permanent 


Parking 


Parking 


Parking 


Rates 


Rates 


Rates 


1.50 


2.00 


2.00 


3.00 


3.00 


3.00 


5.00 


5.00 


5.00 


7.00 


7.00 


7.00 


9.00 


10.00 


10.00 


12.00 


13.00 


13.00 


14.00 


16.00 


16.00 


14.00 


18.00 


18.00 


14.00 


18.00 


18.00 


14.00 


18.00 


18.00 


7.00 


Discontinued 


Discontinued 


10.00 


Discontinued 


Discontinued 


150.00 


200.00 


200.00 


N/A 


100.00 


100.00 


25.00 


25.00 


25.00 


50.00 


25.00 


25.00 


N/A 


N/A 


25.00 


25.00 


50.00 


50.00 


N/A 


N/A 


50.00 



Exhibit d 



PERFORMING ARTS GARAGE 



Attachment I 
Page 5 ot 10 



Transient Parking 

0.0 - 1.0 Hour 
1.0 - 2.0 Hours 
2.0 - 3.0 Hours 
3.0 - 4.0 Hours 
4.0 - 5.0 Hours 
5.0 - 6.0 Hours 
6.0 - 7.0 Hours 
24 Hour Maximum 
Lost Ticket 
Early Bird 
Motorcycle 
Special Event 
Overnight Flat Rate 



Monthly Parking 

Regular 

City Departments 

Carpool 

Miscellaneous Charges 

Late Monthly Payments 
Lost Access Card 
Damaged Access Card- . 
Access Card Deposit 
Re-opening Garage Fee 







Proposed 


Original 


Trial 


Permanent 


Parking 


Parking 


Parking 


Rates 


Rates 


Rates 


1.00 


1.50 


1.50 


2.00 


3.00 


3.00 


3.50 


4.50 


4.50 


5.00 


6.00 


6.00 


6.50 


8.00 


8.00 


8.00 


10.00 


10.00 


8.00 


12.00 


12.00 


11.00 


12.00 


15.00 


11.00 


12.00 


15.00 


5.00 


7.00 


7.00 


N/A 


2.00 


2.00 


5.00 


8.00 


8.00 


3.00 


2.00 


3.00 
(From closing 
until 9:00 am) 


115.00 


140.00 


140.00 


60.00 


75.00 


75.00 


N/A 


75.00 


75.00 


15.00 


25.00 


25.00 


25.00 


25.00 


25.00 


N/A 


N/A 


25.00 


25.00 


50.00 


50.00 


N/A 


N/A 


50.00 



Exhibit e 



POLK - BUSH GARAGE 



Attachment I 
Paee 6 of 10 



Transient Parking 
Day Rates Until 



0.0 


- 1.0 


Hour 


1.0 


- 2.0 


Hours 


2.0 


- 3.0 


Hours 


3.0 


- 4.0 


Hours 


4.0 


- 5.0 


Hours 


5.0 


- 6.0 


Hours 


6.0 


- 7.0 


Hours 


7.0 


+ 


Hours 


Early Bird 




24 Hour Maximum 


Lost Ticket 




Special Event 


Overnight Flat Rate 



Evening Rates (Until Closing) 

0.0 - 1.0 Hour 
1.0 - 2.0 Hours 
2.0 - 3.0 Hours 







Proposed 


Original 


Trial 


Permanent 


Parking 


Parking 


Parking 


Rates 


Rates 


Rates 


6:00 PM 


AH Day 


All Day 


1.00 


1.00 


1.00 


2.00 


2.00 


2.00 


3.00 


3.50 


3.50 


4.00 


5.00 


5.00 


5.00 


6.50 


6.50 


6.00 


8.00 


8.00 


7.00 


9.50 


9.50 


8.00 


11.00 


11.00 


N/A 


N/A 


8.00 


11.00 


14.00 


14.00 


8.00 


14.00 


14.00 


N/A 


5.00 


5.00 


0.00 


3.00 


3.00 

(From closing 
until 9:00 am) 



1.00 Discontinued Discontinued 
2.00 Discontinued Discontinued 
3.00 Discontinued Discontinued 



Monthly Parking 

Regular 
Carpool 

Miscellaneous Charges 

Late Monthly Payments 
Lost Access Card 
Damaged Access Card 
Lost Garage Door Opener 
Access Card Deposit 
Garage Door Deposit 
Re-opening Garage Fee 



80.00 
N/A 



N/A 

25.00 

N/A 
50.00 
25.00 
50.00 

N/A 



115.00 
75.00 



25.00 

25.00 

N/A 

50.00 

50.00 

50.00 

N/A 



125.00 
75.00 



25.00 
25.00 
25.00 
50.00 
50.00 
50.00 
50.00 



* The evening rates are eliminated and the hourly rates apply for the entire 
day during the hours of operation. 



Exhibit F 



ST. MARY'S SQUARE GARAGE 



Attachment' I 
Page 7 ol 10 



Proposed 







Original 


Trial 


Permanent 






Parking 


Parking 


Parking 


Transient Parkinq 


Rates 


Rates 


Rates 


Dav Rates 








Mon 


dav thru Friday until 6:00 PM 








0.0 


- 0.5 Hour 


2.50 


2.00 


2.00 


0.5 


- 1.0 Hours 


4.00 


4.00 


4.00 


1.0 


- 1.5 Hours 


5.50 


6.00 


6.00 


1.5 


- 2.0 Hours 


7.50 


8.00 


8.00 


2.0 


- 2.5 Hours 


9.50 


10.00 


10.00 


2.5 


- 3.0 Hours 


11.50 


12.00 


12.00 


3.0 


- 3.5 Hours 


13.50 


14.00 


14.00 


3.5 


- 4.0 Hours 


15.50 


16.00 


16.00 


4.0 


- 4.5 Hours 


17.50 


18.00 


18.00 


4.5 


- 5.0 Hours 


20.00 


20.00 


20.00 


5.0 


- 5.5 Hours 


24.50 


22.00 


22.00 


5.5 


- 24 Hours 


24.50 


24.00 


24.00 


Lost Ticket 


24.50 


24.00 


24.00 


Early Bird 








(In by 9:00 AM, out by 6:00 PM) 


18.00 


18.00 


18.00 



Evening, Weekend and Holiday Rates 

Monday thru Friday 6:00 PM to 4:00 AM 

Weekend and Holidays 4:00 AM to 4:00 AM 

0.0 - 1.0 Hour 

1.0 - 2.0 Hours 

2.0 - 3.0 Hours 

Up to 4.0 Hours (maximum) 

Validation (3 hours off) 



Monthly Rate 

Regular 
Carpool 
16th and Hoff Garage 

Miscellaneous Charges 

Late Monthly Payments 
Lost Access Card 
Damaged Access Card 
Access Card Deposit 



1.00 


1.00 


1.00 


2.50 


2.00 


2.00 


4.50 


3.00 


3.00 


4.50 


5.00 


5.00 


2.00 


2.00 


2.00 


310.00 


310.00 


310.00 


N/A 


180.00 


180.00 


75.00 


75.00 


75.00 


N/A 


25.00 


25.00 


25.00 


25.00 


25.00 


N/A 


N/A 


25.00 


25.00 


50.00 


50.00 


Exhibit G 







Attachment I 
Page 8 of 10 



SUTTER STOCKTON GARAGE 









Proposed 




Original 


Trial 


Permanent 




Parking 


Parking 


Parking 


Transient Parkinq 


Rates 


Rates 


Rates 


Dav Rates 








Won. thru Sat 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM 








0.0 - 1.0 Hour 


2.00 


2.00 


2.00 


1.0 - 2.0 Hours 


3.00 


3.00 


3.00 


2.0 - 3.0 Hours 


4.00 


4.00 


4.00 


3.0 - 4.0 Hours 


6.00 


6.00 


6.00 


4.0 - 5.0 Hours 


8.00 


8.00 


8.00 


5.0 - 6.0 Hours 


11.00 


11.00 


11.00 


6.0 - 7.0 Hours 


15.00 


15.00 


15.00 


7.0 + Hours 


20.00 


20.00 


N/A 


7.0 - 8.0 Hours 


N/A 


N/A 


20.00 


8.0 - 9.0 Hours 


N/A 


N/A 


25.00 


9.0 + Hours 


N/A 


N/A 


25.00 


24 Hour Maximum 


25.00 


25.00 


30.00 


Lost Ticket 


25.00 


25.00 


30.00 


Bicycles 


0.25 


Free 


Free 


Eveninq & Sunday Rates 








Eveninos 6:00 PM to 7:00 AM 








Sundays 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM 








0.0 - 1.0 Hour; 


1.00 


1.00 


1.00 


1.0 - 2.0 Hours 


2.00 


2.00 


2.00 


2.0 - 3.0 Hours 


3.00 


3.Q0 


3.00 


3.0 - 4.0 Hours 


4.00 


4.00 


4.00 


4.0 + Hours 


5.00 


5.00 


5.00 


Monthly Parkinq 








Regular 


300.00 


350.00 


350.00 


Motorcycle 


50.00 


50.00 


50.00 


Carpool 


N/A 


175.00 


175.00 


Miscellaneous Charqes 








Late Monthly Payments 


N/A 


25.00 


25.00 


Lost Access Card 


25.00 


25.00 


25.00 


Damaged Access Card 


N/A 


N/A 


25.00 


Access Card Deposit 


25.00 


50.00 


50.00 



Exhibit h 



UNION SQUARE GARAGE 



Attachment I 
Page 9 of 10 



Transient Parking 



0.0 - 


0.5 


Hour 


0.5 - 


1.0 


Hours 


1.0 - 


1.5 


Hours 


1.5 - 


2.0 


Hours 


2.0 - 


2.5 


Hours 


2.5 - 


3.0 


Hours 


3.0 - 


3.5 


Hours 


3.5 - 


4.0 


Hours 


4.0 - 


4.5 


Hours 


4.5 - 


5.0 


Hours 


5.0 - 


5.5 


Hours 


5.5 - 


6.0 


Hours 


6.0 - 


24 


Hours 


6.0 - 


7.0 


Hours 


7.0 - 


24 


Hours 


Lost Ticket 




Early Bird 




Motorcycle 




Hotel Transient 


Hotel Gues 


t 


Monthly Parkinq ' 


Regular 




Carpool 




Miscellaneous Charaes 



Late Monthly Payments 
Lost Access Card 
Damage Access Card 
Access Card Deposit 







Proposed 


Original 


Trial 


Permanent 


Parking 


Parking 


Parking 


Rates 


Rates 


Rates 


1.00 


1.00 


1.00 


2.00 


2.00 


2.00 


3.00 


3.00 


3.00 


4.00 


4.00 


4.00 


6.00 


6.00 


6.00 


8.00 


8.00 


8.00 


9.00 


9.00 


9.00 


10.00 


10.00 


10.00 


11.00 


11.00 


11.00 


12.00 


12.00 


12.00 


14.00 


14.00 


14.00 


16.00 


16.00 


16.00 


20.00 


20.00 


N/A 


N/A 


N/A 


20.00 


N/A 


N/A 


25.00 


20.00 


20.00 


25.00 


10.00 


N/A 


N/A 


3.00 


3.00 


3.00 


10.00 


11.50 


11.50 


8.15 


9.20 


9.20 


310.00 


350.00 


350.00 


N/A 


175.00 


175.00 


N/A 


25.00 


25.00 


25.00 


25.00 


25.00 


N/A 


N/A 


25.00 


25.00 


50.00 


50.00 



Exhibit i 



£ I 



CO 






g> 




£ £ 


2 1 


■c^* 


>>.£ 


*7*7« 




'c 




*"" £i 


c 


— 1 


CO ~ 

"2 2 


II 




5 




5 2 


>2 

-S 2 


1 ? 


3 a 

CO o 

CO pj 
|i 


■= o 




o 

O 

N 




0. en 

o c 
o 2 
to 2 


T3 

C O 
3 O 

CO ^ 

is 


= J 


3 3 




Q 


- 


o o 


5 3 


i* 5 
3< 


o o 




i" 


o 


2 5 




o o 


o iB 


_>i 


< 


© 


< Q- 


cB o 


c o 


m o 


o 


iq 


o o 


c o 


in p 


o o 

2 d 


d d 


15 


q 


d 


o p 


o o 

2 d 


d *■ 


(j* t^ 


Q 


d 


«» 


d d 


w> <y» 



- II 



Attachment I 
Page 10 of 10 



CO 

O 

_J ^ 

05 © 

CL E 

■a * 

<r> co 

fe 3, 



i». 






r^r 


a 

"E 2 


E 


I 


3 


CL 






CO 
CO 


o 
o 


5 


a 


5 
£ 


d 


Ci 


3S 


o 


3 


3 


CO 
-a 


2 


o 


o 


< 


o 


s 



c o m o 



c 








~.§ 


J- 


■a 

s 




5 2 




E 2 


CD 


o 




Q. Ol 


T3 **" 
C O 


- £ 


E 


p 




sl 


3 O 


■= o 




cvi 




« d 

|3 


o 

c 


o 




3 3 








3 






3 3 


3 


2 
< 


o 
o 


2 2 

< a. 


Sr 5 


o o 
o o 


O 

i 


in 


o o 


c o 


in p 


io 


CO o 


d 


o o 


o o 
2 d 


d r- 


d 


a d 


w> 


d d 


tf> <& 


n 



~3 

!5 



X 





CO 

"S 2 

3 0- 

"ro o 


1| 

Z f 

■= o 

£i *■ 

3 3 
O O 


to 

"S 2 

3 OL 
TO O 




2 

a. 

o 




sT 5 
■So. 

c 
3 O 


E t_- 
— 3 

CJ."g 

= ? 


3 




CO o 

^ n 
£ — 

i-2 


CO O 
3 d 

£ -2 
^2 


3 
O 


o 
d 

o 

5 




CO d 

3 •" 

i> 5 ' 


O 
CO 

"a 


5 




O In 


to <• 


5 


< 




■§< 


3 


5 




C O 


to o 


c o 


m 


o 


z. 


C O 


m p 




o 


o o 
2 d 


d d 


o o 
2 d 


d 
to 


o 
d 


O 

2 d 


d «- 


■a 

CD 



o 3 
< 2 



O « 

|1 

>. 3 



O^ 



§.15 1 

CO O CO to 

o x. a: 2 



R Q- 









-^ 


O 


Tn 


CO 







D 




f 


< 


a 







JD 


O 

O 







O 


CD 



CO O CO 3 



O CO T3 



3 = r= 5 C 



< 2 



Ed WdcLt'lPI RRP1P c? -ion 



CCDC w<-?c~ 



FROM • : ■ 



PHONE NO. 



554 9895 



SAM FRANCISCO 



Attachment II 
Page 1 ot 2 

City and County of San Francisco 




DEPARTMENT OF PAHKING A TRAFFIC 

WILLIE LEWIS BROWN, JR., Mayor 

FRED M. HAMDUN. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

ROBERT G. DAVIS. DIRECTOR, PARKING AUTHORITY 



MEMORANDUM 




Date: 



To: 



From: 



Subject: 



October 25, 2000 

Maureen Singleton 
Analyst 
Budget Analyst 

Ronald Szeto ^£ 
Deputy Director 
Parking Authority 

File No. 00-1850 



The purpose of this memorandum is to describe the methodology I used to prepare the 
revenue projections. I evaluated each garage on an individual basis. For each garage, I 
adjusted for seasonal variation (holiday shopping season, entertainment schedule, and 
conventions), uniqueness of programs (valet and construction projects that generates 
additional demand to the garage), capital improvements projects within the garage that 
change the number of spaces available to the public, the condition of garages, and the 
parking operator's ability to stimulate business. 



H:\PAKjaNCi0O-i330 3udgct Atulysi on Parking Xjiq iO-25- M te 



(415) 554-PARK FAX (4151 554-9834 



25 Van Ness Avenue, Suits 410 



San Franasco, CA S4".:;-i£76 



PHONE NO. 



554 9895 



Attachment II 
."ape Z or z 



ill I s 
la! 



Of M-»OI 



2 '■' U 
. S 



e w s 



!§ 



.2 C 
II 



■^ — O CO ff to 

S CO (M 03 rt 

>o~ fO *-* «" 



co ■— *- **■ "> 



i so.«o © © f- rt 

5 — Q h- B» <D_ — _ ©_ 

• o o t a> m t- o 



a c ▼ o at q to * o 
<o" fsT o -r* f^r o ri rt -r 



«s 



NOVO en 

*o as io" to* to en 



£3 
a. 

1 
o 

i *"s 

= e 2 

iff 



1 o « jo 



en to" o" 



OT N HJ *- I 



e»1 en" 

-•3 



(Bfl'-TOip'V' , 1tO 

o" a»~ HI <p~ gr *-" to* *-* er>" 

a o »-* V to *- 



0©0©00000 
OOOOQOOOO 

*5.""5. Q. OS O. "ci. Q- Q- Oj 

»(Aco<tonco»co 
2 2 2 2 2 = 2=2, 

Sot a o> ts o o o 
» a ;» a* o o 

(S & & Q Q ■§■•§■< 



=1 a o 5 xi £ _- _• _-fl 

SSS5SS<<< 

C Q Q 5 Q a 



* « .S 3 _ u> 3 O 
» c "co = E^>H 

l<o o u 5 



88 



O O O O O O CM 

O O a a o a to 

3SJ 25 o 55 o o a» 

o o" o" o" o" o q' q" *- 



■«- CO (N tO *~ O ^- 



8888 



oaoocoo - o rs 

C0<"0000 ^f-Csi 

v rs en ro O v <*> *~ 



iQ^.mtnoo»otN 
n ^* f^* «* V V -" g g £ 

— " to" (N co* «- <n ri o* 



slSi-ISS | 5 1 

SoOjfii In ^ £ <j 



u 

a 

> 

Jl 


oi 

o" 

r- 


"T 

<^i 


rn 

CM 

<N~ 
fN 


12-Month Revenue 
After Rate 
Adjustment 


o 

m 
DO 

v-T 

<n 


vd 

CO 

o_ 

en 
O 


o 

CN 

m 
rn" 


12 -Mo nth 
Revenue Prior to 
Rate Adjustment 


o 

co 

cs 
CM 
>o" 
tn 


m 
oo 
oi 
tn 

tn 

V5 


CM 

<n 

v-> 


Effective Date 
Of Rate 
Adjustment 


r-- 

C\ 

<o 

oo 


CO 


CO 

a\ 

oo 

oo 


"5 
-J 

a 
9k 


u 
c 

1° 


1) 

u 

oo 
t> 

o 


c 

CM 



FROM 



PHONE NO. : 554 9895 



SAN FRANCISCO 



Attachment III 
Oct. 26 2000 05:07PM PI 

City and County of San Francisco 




DEPARTMENT OF PARKJNG A TRAt-HC 

WILLIE LEWIS BROWN, JR., Mayor 

FRED M. HAMDUN. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

ROBERT G. DAVIS. DIRECTOR. PARKING AUTHORITY 




MEMORANDUM 



DATE: 
TO: 

FROM: 



October 26, 2000 

Maureen Singleton 
Budget Analyst Office 

Ronald Szeto < £ = £ 7 
Parking Authority 



SUBJECT: File No. 00-1850 



The purpose of this memorandum is to account for the delay in submitting a request to 
adopt the 180-day trail parking rates as permanent parking rates. 

We reported to the Parking and Traffic Commission on August 15, 2000 that when staff 
forwarded these rates to the Board of Supervisors the first time (For Pierce Street Garage 
and California &. Steiner metered facilities), the Board's Finance Committee did not 
calendar the Department of Parking and Traffic's (DPT) request at that time. For the 22 nd 
& Geary metered facility, we continued lo implement the parking rates on a trial basis 
since we wanted to make the parking rates permanent at ail twelve (12) facilities at the 
same time. 

For these reasons, we acknowledge that we have implemented parking rates on a trial 
basis beyond the 1 80-day period stipulated in the Administrative Code without first 
obtaining Board of Supervisors' approval. 

RS:rls 



H:\PARKrNG\Board of SupervisorsvMenio lo Budget Analyst re trail rates.doc 



(41 5) 554-PARK FAX (41 5) 554-8534 



25 Van Ness Avenue, Suits 410 



San Francisco. CA $41 02-4576 



26 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Items 7. 8. 9 10 and 11 - Files 00-1854. 00-1855. 00-1856. 00-1857 and 00-1858 



Department: 
Items: 



Department of Human Resources (HRD) 

Item 7. File 00-1854 

Ordinance implementing Amendment No. 1 to the 1997- 
2001 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the 
City and the Building Inspectors, Local No. 22, pursuant 
to Article V.C. of the Memorandum of Understanding 
(MOU). 

Item 8, File 00-1855 

Ordinance implementing Amendment No. 1 to the 1997- 
2001 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the 
City and the Pile Drivers, Divers, Carpenters, Bridge, 
Wharf & Dock Builders, Local No. 34, pursuant to Article 
V.C. of the MOU. 

Item 9, File 00-1856 

Ordinance implementing Amendment No. 1 to the 1997- 
2001 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the 
City and the United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers and 
Allied Workers, Local No. 40, pursuant to Article V.C. of 
the MOU. 

Item 10, File 00-1857 

Ordinance implementing Amendment No. 2 to the 1997- 
2001 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the 
City and the Glaziers, Local No. 718, pursuant to Article 
V.C. of the MOU. 

Item 11. File 00-1858 

Ordinance implementing Amendment No. 1 to the 1997- 
2001 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the 
City and the Supervising Probation Officers, Local Union 
No. 3, pursuant to Article V.C. of the MOU. 



Descriptions: 



The five proposed ordinances would amend five existing 
MOUs with different collective bargaining units. 
According to Ms. Alice Villagomez of the Department of 
Human Resources (HRD), all of the proposed amendments 
codify existing practices and will not result in additional 
costs to the City, as stated in the Attachment, provided by 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



HRD (see Comment No. 1). Each of the MOUs, which 
apply to FY 1997-1998 through FY 2000-2001, include 
provisions stating that existing practices would be 
reviewed and added to the provisions in the respective 
agreements. 



Item 7. File 00-1854 

In 1997 the Board of Supervisors approved a 
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Building 
Inspectors, Local No. 22, for the four-year period from 
July 1, 1997 through June 31, 2001. The MOU with the 
Building Inspectors, Local No. 22, covers the following 
two classifications, comprising a total of 74.5 Full Time 
Equivalent (FTE) positions: 6331 Building Inspector and 
6333 Senior Building Inspector. 

The subject ordinance would approve Amendment No. 1 
to the subject MOU with Local No. 22. According to Ms. 
Villagomez, Amendment No. 1 contains the following 
existing practices not specifically stated in the current 
MOU as previously approved by the Board of Supervisors. 

Official Representation 

The collective bargaining contract negotiating team shall 
continue to be paid for release time to participate in 
negotiation, mediation and arbitration during the 
employees' regular work hours. 

Work Schedules 

Employees will continue to receive two paid 15-minute 
breaks for each full time shift, one in the morning and one 
in the afternoon. In addition, one unpaid 30-minute meal 
period shall continue to be provided at approximately 
mid-shift. When an employee is working overtime, a meal 
and/or break will continue to be provided as required by 
law. Ms. Villagomez advises that Federal law requires 
that employees work no more than five hours of overtime 
without a rest period. Federal law does not specify the 
length of the break, according to Ms. Villagomez. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Safety 

The City will continue to supply all safety shoes and 

safety equipment. 



Item 8. File 00-1855 

In 1997 the Board of Supervisors approved an MOU with 
the Pile Drivers, Divers, Carpenters, Bridge, Wharf & 
Dock Builders, Local No. 34, for the four-year period from 
July 1, 1997 through June 31, 2001. The MOU with Local 
No. 34 covers the following two classifications, comprising 
a total of 15 FTEs: 9330 Pile Worker and 9332 Piledriver 
Supervisor. 

The subject ordinance would approve Amendment No. 1 
to the subject MOU with Local No. 34. According to Ms. 
Villagomez, Amendment No. 1 contains the following 
existing practices not specifically stated in the current 
MOU as previously approved by the Board of Supervisors. 

Crew Size 

To promote safe working conditions, when either of the 
pile driving water rigs currently in service are driving or 
pulling pile, the rig shall include one 9332 Pile Driver 
Supervisor I and five 9330 Pile Workers. 

Job Site Parkins 

For Pile Drivers who work at the Port, as long as the 
Port's Maintenance Division is located at Pier 50, Pile 
Drivers will have access to parking at either Pier 50 or 
Pier 90. Pile Drivers will also have access to parking at 
other job sites, to the extent that such parking is made 
available. When parking is not available at other job sites, 
the Port will provide transportation for Pile Drivers from 
either Pier 50 or Pier 90 to the job site. According to Ms. 
Villagomez, this parking is available for employees in the 
Port's Maintenance Division to the extent that a location 
is available on Port property, on a first come first serve 
basis, with no reserved spaces. Ms. Villagomez advises 
that the cost of transporting these employees to job sites 
away from Piers 50 and 90, when necessary, would be 
included in the Port's budget. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Clean-up Time 

Adequate time for an employee to clean-up within an 
employee's shift will continue to be provided on an as- 
need basis. 

Breaks 

Employees will continue to receive two paid 15-minute 
break periods each shift, once approximately two hours 
after the start of the shift and the other approximately 
two hours before the end of the shift. 

Diving Gear 

The City shall provide all diving gear deemed necessary 
to the performance of job assignments that require diving. 



Item 9. File 00-1856 

In 1997 the Board of Supervisors approved an MOU with 
the United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied 
Workers, Local No. 40, for the four-year period from July 
1, 1997 through June 30, 2001. The MOU with Local No. 
40 covers the following classifications, comprising a total 
of 11 FTEs: 9343 Roofer and 9344 Roofer Supervisor I. 

The subject ordinance would approve Amendment No. 1 
to the subject MOU with Local No. 40. According to Ms. 
Villagomez, Amendment No. 1 contains the following 
existing practices not specifically stated in the current 
MOU as previously approved by the Board of Supervisors. 

Job Site Parkins 

For covered who work at the Port, as long as the Port's 
Maintenance Division is located at Pier 50, employees will 
have access to parking at either Pier 50 or Pier 90. 
Employees will also have access to parking at other job 
sites, to the extent that such parking is made available. 
When parking is not available at other job sites, the Port 
will provide transportation for employees from either Pier 
50 or Pier 90 to the job site. According to Ms. Villagomez, 
this parking is available for employees in the Port's 
Maintenance Division to the extent that a location is 
available on Port property, on a first come first serve 
basis, with no reserved spaces. Ms. Villagomez advises 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



tbat tbe cost of transporting tbese employees to job sites 
away from Piers 50 and 90, wben necessary, would be 
included in tbe Port's budget (see Comment No. 3). 

Travel Time 

The proposed amendment would continue to pay 
employees for their travel time to and from any job 
outside of the City. According to Ms. Villagomez, this 
travel time is included as part of an employee's regular 
work shift. The employees report to work, take necessary 
equipment and vehicles and travel to the work site as 
assigned. 

Work Clothes 

The City shall continue to supply protective work clothes 
to covered employees. 

Tools 

The City shall continue to provide all hand tools for 
employees covered under the subject MOU. 



Item 10, File 00-1857 

In 1997 the Board of Supervisors approved an MOU with 
the Glaziers, Local No. 718, for the four-year period from 
July 1, 1997 through June 30, 2001. The MOU with the 
Glaziers, Local No. 718, covers the following two 
classifications, comprising a total of 8 FTEs: 7326 Glazier 
and 7233 Glazier Supervisor I. 

The subject ordinance would approve Amendment No. 2 
to the subject MOU with Local No. 718. According to Ms. 
Villagomez, Amendment No. 2 contains the following 
existing practices not specifically stated in the current 
MOU as previously approved by the Board of Supervisors. 

Overtime 

Overtime will continue to be assigned on a rotation basis 
to employees who wish to work overtime shifts. Ms. 
Villagomez advises that this practice is intended to 
ensure that overtime is assigned equitably. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Vacation Sisn-iws 

Vacation sign-ups as currently practiced sball continue. 
According to Ms. Villagomez, employees currently request 
vacation leave in advance from their supervisor. 

Specialty Tools 

The City will continue to provide specialty tools to covered 
employees. 

City Vehicles 

The City will continue the practice of aUowing employees 
who are assigned City vehicles to take the vehicles home 
with them. According to Ms. Villagomez, supervisors may 
authorize employees to take a vehicle home with them so 
that the employee may report directly to a job site the 
following day. 



Item 11. File 00-1858 

In 1997 the Board of Supervisors approved an MOU with 
the Supervising Probation Officers, Local No. 3, for the 
four-year period from July 1, 1997 through June 30, 2001. 
The MOU with the Supervising Probation Officers, Local 
No. 3, covers the following three classifications, 
comprising a total of 23 FTEs: 8414 Supervising 
Probation Officer, 8415 Senior Supervising Probation 
Officer, 8434 Supervising Adult Probation Officer. 

The subject ordinance would approve Amendment No. 1 
to the subject MOU with Local No. 3. According to Ms. 
Villagomez, Amendment No. 1 contains the following 
existing practices not specifically stated in the current 
MOU as previously approved by the Board of Supervisors. 

Flex Week Scheduling 

For Supervising Probation Officers who work in the 
Department of Adult Probation, flex week scheduling will 
continue according to the written Flex Time Schedule 
policy currently in effect at the Adult Probation 
Department. According to Ms. Villagomez, this written 
policy requires the completion of a 40-hour work week, 
but allows employees to redistribute their work hours 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

within the limits set and authorized by management, in a 
way that is consistent with their job requirements. 

For Supervising Probation Officers who work in the 
Department of Juvenile Probation, flex week scheduling 
will continue as defined in the existing subject MOU, 
which states that employees are entitled to flex week 
scheduling as authorized by the Juvenile Probation 
Department. 

Comments: 1. As noted above, the intent of the five proposed 

amendments is to enumerate and codify existing practices 
by appending them to their respective MOUs. According 
to Ms. Villagomez and as stated in the Attachment, the 
five unions addressed in this report identified existing 
practices affecting bargaining unit members that were not 
included in their respective MOUs, and HRD researched 
and verified such existing practices. The City entered into 
tentative agreements with the respective unions 
regarding some of the existing practices and submitted 
one disputed practice to arbitration (see Comment No. 2). 
Ms. Villagomez advises that the subject amendments are 
part of the City effort to update all of its collective 
bargaining agreements to identify and include existing 
practices within the already approved MOUs. Ms. 
Villagomez states that all existing practices included in 
the proposed amendments were in existence at least since 
July 1, 1996, or one year before the current MOUs went 
into effect on July 1, 1997. Ms. Villagomez advises that 
Article V.C. in each of the five subject MOUs provides for 
the proposed subject inclusion of past practices and 
defines the criteria for selecting past practices. 

2. According to Ms. Villagomez and as stated in the 
Attachment, of the five subject MOUs there was one item 
that was advanced to arbitration because the City 
disagreed with the bargaining unit's representations on a 
specific matter. The Glaziers, Local No. 718, submitted to 
arbitration a provision that would have set the work-week 
as Monday through Friday, which the City did not agree 
with. Ms. Villagomez advises that the arbitrator ruled in 
the City's favor and stated that a Monday through Friday 
work-week contradicted provisions of the existing MOU 
between the City and the Glaziers, Local No. 718, which 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



already defined the work week as five consecutive days 
within a seven day period. 

3. For Item 9, File 00-1856, a clerical correction is 
required in the proposed amendment to the existing MOU 
between the City and the United Union of Roofers, 
Waterproofers and Allied Workers, Local No. 40. The 
amendment incorrectly states that parking will be 
provided to Pile Drivers working at the Port. The 
provision should be amended to replace Pile Drivers with 
Roofers. In response the Budget Analyst's inquires, Ms. 
Villagomez has submitted a substitute ordnance to the 
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors correcting this error. 

4. According to Ms. Pamela Levin of the Controller's 
Office, based on HRD's determination that the items 
covered by the five proposed amendments to existing 
MOUs are past practices, there would be no additional 
cost as a result of these MOU amendments. As stated 
previously, according to Ms. Villagomez, all of the 
practices outlined in the proposed amendments have been 
in effect since at least July 1, 1996 and related 
expenditures, if any, are funded in the appropriate 
departmental budgets. 



Recommendation: Approve the five proposed ordinances. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Attachment 
Page 1 ot 2 



City and County of San Francisco 




Department of Human Resourc 



/ 



October 25, 2000 : 

TO: Harvey Raise 

Budget 'Analyst, Board offSapervisors 

W 
FRQNf- AJScaVu^gmneg J* • . 

Deputy Director, Employes Relations Division 



ANDREA R. GCURC1HE 
HUMAN RESOURCSS DIRECTOR. 



RE: 



> to various MOUs enumerating past practices 



These amendments codify long s tanding past practices funded by existing cienanmental 
budgetary ailocarions. As such, they do not rcsuii in any additional funding. " 

l^veaty-cwo collective bargaining agreements negodated for the period of July 1 1997 
through June 30, 2001 call for the idenrrnrr-n'on and enumeration of oast nractices to be 
appended to the master agreement. 

The following language is the referenced provision identical in all of die affected 
agreements: 



PAST PRACTICE 



lie parnes to this Agreement shail meet for die purpose of enumerating all 
past practices. The parries shall also meet to identify the current Civil 
Service Rules that are arbitrable. For the purposes of this section, a "past 
practice" shall mean either (i) an agrecrneni between the City and the Union 
Thai- has been in existence for at least one year and that addresses an 
appropriate subject to include in the collective bargaining agreement, or (if) a 
known and well-established course of conduct thai has been in existence for 
at least one year and thai addresses an appropriate subject to include in the 
collective bargaining agreement. 



1. 



Any disputes regarding 'whether a past practice exists shall be 
submitted to binding arbitration no later than January 1, 1998 excect 
thai this date may be extended for up to an additional three months if 
requested by either parr/. The parties shail mutually agree to an 
arbiiraicr. pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. The 
arbitrator's sole authority shall be to determine whemer a past 
practice exists, as defined in this section. The arbitrator's decision 
shall be finai and binding upon the paries, as provided in Charter 
Section A3.409. 



All past practices agreed by tee. parties to be mciutied in the 
Agreement shall be appended to the Agreement and approved 
pursuant to the provisions of Charer Section AS.4C9. inciudin 
submission for approval by the Board of Surer risers. All -as: 
practices to be included in the Agreement by award shall' be 



— Gouq.n 2 :rs 



un r-nc::r.i C- <Vi-n->.-- 



Attachment 
Page 2 of 2 



appended to the Agreement, subject to implementation pursuant to 
Charter Section A8.409. Thereafter, ail alleged violations of 
appended past practices will be subject to the grievance and 
arbitration crocedurc of the Afireemem. 



There shall be no change or modification of any past practice or other understanding 
between the parties (except for those matters governed by the Civil Service Rales errrindM 
irom arbitration) imrii the parties reach final agreement on the inclusion of past practices 
into ihe agre em ent on until the arbitration award is issued pursuant to the provisions herein 
whichever is later. I Thereafter, the parties agree thai all past practices and other 
understandings between the parties not emressiy memorialized and incorDonacd into this 
Agreement shall no longer be enforceable. 



The City and the unions began the process of the identification, research, verification, 
confirmation and drafting of submitted lists of practices in August of 1997. Seventeen of the 
twenty- two unions submitted lists of practices by January 1998. The three month extension 
provided under the past practices provisions was activated and the period was extended to 
April 1, 1998. 

The process to research, verify and determine which of the practices advanced by the unions 
met the criteria and definition of the past practices provision was lengthy in so tar that each 
practice had to be verified with ail affected City departments and or when a practice cnlv 
had been identified for one City department such practice was :h*n confirmed and then 
codified for thai one department. 

This is the first set of im'~^ir"<>rffs for the seven subject MOUs that reflect the comnletion of 
the process. Of the seven subject MOUs, there was one item relating to work dav/ work 
week which was advanced to arbination by the Glaziers. The Arbitrator ruled in favor of the 
City's position and as such the practice in dispute is not contained in the list of submissions 
under amendment if 1 'to the MOU between the City and Glaziers Union Local No.718. 

The Employee Relations Division is continuing in fmaiiring the amendments for other 
subject MOUs for which practices were either advanced to arbitration and or recuircd 
rurther clarification and revision. 

The process has been a very lengthy one since it involved ail affected city departments and 
in some cases specific work sites for each list of practices identified by a union for the 

numerous subject MOUs. 

j 

The enumeration and; codification of working condition practices wj] be fbnrafizcd as 
terms and contirriens of employment appropriately appended to the resr-ective collective 
barg ainin g asreemenis with the ratification of these amendments. 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Item 12 - File 00-1859 

Department: 

Item: 



Human Resources Department (HRD) 

Ordinance implementing Amendment No. 2 to tbe 1997- 
2001 Memorandum of Understanding between 
Automotive Machinists, Local 1414, and the City and 
County of San Francisco by appending the following list of 
past practices pursuant to Article V.C. of the 
Memorandum of Understanding. 



Description: 



The proposed ordinance would amend the existing 
Memorandum of Understanding (MOLT) with the 
Automotive Machinists, Local 1414. The proposed 
amendment codifies existing practices and will not result 
in additional costs to the City, as reported by Ms. Alice 
Villagomez of HRD in Attachment I (see Comment No. 1). 

In 1997 the Board of Supervisors approved an MOU with 
the Automotive Machinists, Local 1414, for the four-year 
period from July 1, 1997 through June 30, 2001. The 
MOU with the Automotive Machinists, Local 1414, covers 
25 classifications, as shown in Attachment II, comprising 
a total of 420 full time equivalent (FTE) positions. 

The proposed ordinance would approve Amendment No. 2 
to the subject MOU with the Automotive Machinists, 
Local 1414. Ms. Villagomez states that Amendment No. 2 
contains the following existing practices not specifically 
stated in the current MOU as previously approved by the 
Board of Supervisors. 

Meal. Clean-up, and Break Periods for Covered 
Employees: 

Covered employees working for City departments other 
than Hetch-Hetchy would receive (a) a 30-minute unpaid 
meal period per shift, (b) a 10-minute clean-up period 
prior to the meal period and a 10-minute clean-up period 
prior to the end of the shift, and (c) a 15-minute break 
period approximately mid-morning and a 15-minute break 
period two hours after lunch or approximately at the sixth 
hour of the shift. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Meal. Clean-up, and Break Periods for Covered 
Emplo-vees Employed bv Hetch-Hetchy: 

Covered employees who work at Hetch-Hetchy would 
receive (a) a 30-minute unpaid lunch period per eight- 
hour shift, scheduled four hours after the start of the shift 
or within a five-hour period if deemed appropriate by the 
General Foreman, and (b) a 15-minute break period after 
two hours and after six hours subsequent to the start of 
the shift. 

Covered Hetch-Hetchy employees assigned to an 
emergency road crew would receive (a) a 30-minute 
unpaid lunch break scheduled during the shift, and (b) a 
15-minute break period after two hours and after six 
hours subsequent to the start of the shift. If the lunch 
break is interrupted by an emergency call, the lunch 
break may be resumed after the emergency call is 
completed. However, if the lunch break cannot be 
resumed, the covered employee would be compensated at 
time and one-half if the employee works for more than 
eight hours in the shift. If the break period is interrupted 
by an emergency call, the covered employee shall take the 
break as soon as the emergency call is completed. If the 
interrupted break occurs one-half hour before the lunch 
break, then the covered employee may combine the 15- 
minute break with the 30-minute lunch period. Covered 
employees are required to take their 15-minute break 
periods within the vicinity of the work area and their 30- 
minute lunch period in an area that allows for contact 
time of 5 minutes or less for a trouble call. 

General Conditions for Covered Employees: 
The City would provide (a) assigned parking at work 
locations where it is currently provided and as available, 
(b) existing locker room, showers, and break or lunchroom 
facilities, (c) bottled water at all fixed locations, (d) 
vending machines and coffee truck services which are 
currently available, subject to maintaining a vendor for 
these services, and (e) specialty or custom tools required 
by the City to perform the work. Additionally, the City 
would pay for the repair or replacement of required tools 
that are owned by the covered employee. Ms. Villagomez 
states that covered employees would have access to 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



available parking on City property but would not be 
guaranteed a parking space. 

Conditions Specific to the Department of Public 
Transportation (Muni): 

The proposed Amendment contains provisions for 
assigning overtime work and vacation schedules that, 
according to Ms. Villagomez, are long-standing practices 
within the department. Additionally, the proposed 
Amendment contains provisions that clarify Muni's 
procedures for shift assignments and displacement of 
employees. 

Overtime Wheel Guidelines : The proposed Amendment 
codifies Muni's practice of using an "overtime wheel", 
which is a list of covered employees by classification and 
seniority, for the Motor Coach Division to insure that each 
employee is offered an equal share of overtime by 
classification. One overtime wheel would be used to award 
overtime work by classification. A separate wheel would 
be used for awarding overtime work on holidays by 
classification. Muni management would determine the 
amount of overtime that is available based on operating 
needs. Overtime is offered in 8-hour increments. If an 
employee is offered less than 8 hours of overtime, they 
will maintain their position on the overtime wheel until 
they have received 8 hours of overtime. The overtime 
wheel guidelines state that an employee who accepts an 
overtime assignment but is not able to work the overtime 
is required to report his or her unavailability prior to the 
start of the overtime shift. An employee who agrees to 
work overtime but fails to report to work would be subject 
to disciplinary action. Additionally, a supervisor who fails 
to adhere to the overtime guidelines would be subject to 
disciplinary action. In an emergency, supervisors may call 
in employees based on their ability to respond quickly to 
the call for overtime rather than on the basis of the 
overtime wheel. The supervisor calling in the employee 
on an emergency basis must submit to the General 
Superintendent of the Motor Coach Division written 
justification for not adhering to the overtime list. 

Vacation Bid Procedures: The proposed Amendment 
codifies Muni's practice regarding bidding for scheduled 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



vacation time. Such bidding for vacation time is subject to 
approval by Muni management. The order of bidding on 
vacations is established by seniority within classification. 
The vacation sign-up period is from December 1 through 
December 31 of each year for vacations scheduled from 
February 1 through January 31 of the following year. The 
covered employee can bid for use of all vacation hours 
accrued as of December 31. If the covered employee 
cancels his or her scheduled vacation or exercises his or 
her right to change shifts or location by moving into a 
vacant position or by displacing a less senior employee, he 
or she loses the vacation schedule that he or she bid on 
and must schedule vacation time from remaining 
available time on a first-come first-serve basis. 

Shift Assignments and Displacement Procedure 
Clarification: The proposed Amendment clarifies Muni's 
existing practice regarding shift assignments and 
displacement procedure for covered employees. If Muni 
management changes a covered employee's shift or 
scheduled days off, management must provide one-week's 
written notice to the affected employee. Changes made by 
management in shift assignment, scheduled days off, or 
work location are made based on the employee's 
qualifications and seniority in a permanent or temporary 
position. If an employee's shift, scheduled days off, or 
work location are changed by Muni management, that 
employee may displace a less senior employee in order to 
obtain a preferred shift, schedule of days off, or work 
location. 

A covered employee may displace a less senior employee 
to obtain a preferred shift, schedule of days off, or work 
location by giving at least two weeks notice to Muni 
management. The employee who is displaced would 
assume the shift, scheduled days off, or work location of 
the more senior employee who is displacing the less senior 
employee. Once a covered employee exercises his or her 
right to displace a less senior employee, he or she cannot 
be displaced and cannot displace another employee for six 
months. Under the proposed Amendment, if the 
displacement procedure results in the employee working 
more than his or her normally scheduled hours in the pay 
period, he or she will not receive overtime pay. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Comments: 



The proposed language requires Muni management to 
post vacant positions for a 2-week period, although 
management may fill the position temporarily, pending 
the selection of a permanent employee. Vacant positions 
are awarded based on the seniority of the covered 
employee. If no one applies to fill a vacant position, 
management may assign the least senior qualified 
employee to work the schedule or work location of the 
vacant position. 

1. As noted above, the intent of the proposed amendment 
is to enumerate and codify existing practices by 
appending the amendment to the MOU. According to Ms. 
Villagomez, Local 1414 identified existing practices 
affecting bargaining unit members that were not included 
in this MOU, and HRD researched and verified such 
existing practices. The City entered into a tentative 
agreement with Local 1414 regarding the existing 
practices. Ms. Villagomez advises that the subject 
amendment is part of the City effort to update all of its 
collective bargaining agreements to identify and include 
existing practices within the applicable MOU. Ms. 
Villagomez states that all existing practices included in 
the proposed amendment were in existence at least since 
July 1, 1996, or one year before the current MOU went 
into effect on July 1, 1997. Ms. Villagomez advises that 
Article V.C. of the previously approved MOU provides for 
the proposed subject inclusion of past practices and 
defines the criteria for selecting past practices. 

2. According to Ms. Pamela Levin of the Controller's 
Office, based on the HRD's determination that the items 
covered by the proposed amendment to the existing MOU 
are past practices, there would be no additional cost as a 
result of this MOU amendment. As stated previously, 
according to Ms. Villagomez, all of the practices outlined 
in the proposed amendment have been in effect since at 
least July 1, 1996 and related expenditures, if any, are 
included in the applicable department budgets. 



Recommendation: 



Approve the proposed ordinance. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



OCT 26'00 12:02 FR 



City and County of San Francisco 



October 25, 2000 

TO: Harvey Roise 

Budget Anal) st, Board o^Supervisors 

FROM: Alice Villagomez 

Deputy Director, Employee Relations Division 



Attachment I 
"Page 1 of 2 




Department of Human Resource; 



A*J0R£A R. GOURDINE 
HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR 



L 



RE: AmendmeBts (to various MOUs enumerating past practices 

These amendments codify long standing past practices funded by existing departmental 
budgetary allocations. As such, they do not resuli in any additional funding. 

Twenty-two collective bargaining agreements negotiated for the period of July 1,1997 
through June 30, 200 \ call for the identification and enumeration of past practices to be 
appended to the master agreement 

The following language is the referenced provision identical in all of the affected 
agreements: 



PAST PRACTICE 



The parties to this Agreement shall meet for the purpose of enumerating all 
past practices. The parties shall also meet to identify the current Civil 
Service Rules that are arbitrable. For the purposes of this section, a "past 
practice" shall mean either (i) an agreement between the City and the Union 
that has been in existence for at least one year and that addresses an 
appropriate subject to include in the collective bargaining agreement, or (if) a 
loiown and well-established course of conduct that has been in existence for 
at least one year and that addresses an appropriate subject to include in the 
collective bargaining agreement. 



Any disputes regarding whether a past practice exists shall be 
submitted to binding arbitration no later than January 1, 1998, except 
that this date may be extended for up to an additional three months if 
requested by either party. The parties shall mutually agree to an 
arbitrator, pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. The 
arbitrator's sole authority shall be to determine whether a past 
practice exists, as defined in this section. The arbitrator's decision 
shall be final and binding upon the parties, as provided in Charter 
Section A8.409. 

All past practices agreed by the parties to be included in the 
Agreement shall be appended to the Agreement and approved 
pursuant to the provisions of Charter Section A8.409, including 
submission for approval by the Board of Supervisors. All oast 
practices to be included in the Agreement by award shall be 



44 Gough Street • San Francisco, CA 94103-1233 



OCT 26' 00 12:03 FR 



Attachment I 
-Page 2 ot Z 



appended to the Agreement, subject to implementation pursuant to 
Charter Section A8.409. Thereafter, all alleged violations of 
appended past practices will be subject to the grievance and 
arbitration procedure of the Agreement 

There shall be no caange or modification of any past practice or other understanding 
between the parties (except for those matters governed by the Civil Service Rules excluded 
from arbitration) untijl the parties reach final agreement on the inclusion of past practices 
until the arbitration award is issued pursuant to the provisions herein 
Thereafter, the parties agree that all past practices and other 
understandings between the parties not expressly memorialized and incorporated into this 
Agreement shall no longer be enforceable. 



into the agreement or 
whichever is later. 



The City and the ; unions began the process of the identification, research, verification, 
confirmation and drafting of submitted lists of practices in August of 1997. Seventeen of The 
twenty- two unions submitted lists of practices by January 1998. The three month extension 
provided under the past practices provisions was activated and the period was extended to 
April 1, 1998. 

The process to research, verify and determine which of the practices advanced by the unions 
met the criteria and definition of the past practices provision was lengthy in so far that each 
practice had to be verified with all affected City departments and or when a practice only 
had been identified tor one City department such practice was then confirmed and then 
codified for that one department 

This is the first set of amendments for the seven subject MOUs that reflect the completion of 
the process. Of the seven subject MOUs, there was one item relating to work day/ work 
week which.was advanced to arbitration by the Glaziers. The Arbitrator ruled in favor of the 
City's position and aslsuch the practice in dispute is not contained in the list of submissions 
under amendment # 1 to the MOU between the City and Glaziers Union Local No.718. 

The Employee Relations Division is continuing in finalizing the amendments for other 
subject MOUs for which practices were either advanced to arbitration and or required 
further clarification and revision. 



The process has been a very lengthy one since it involved all affected city departments and 
in some cases specific work sites for each list of practices identified by a union for the 
numerous subject MOUs. 



The enumeration and 
terms and conditions 
bargaining agreements 



codification of working condition practices will be formalized as 
of employment appropriately appended to the respective collective 
with the ratification of these amendments. 



Dor.c a ci n 



OCT 25'00 14:21 FR 



130 Auto Machinists, Lodee 1414 

Job code Title 

7126 Mech Shop &. Equip Supt 

Transit Paint Shop Sprvl 
Automotive Tmst Shop Sprv 1 



Attachment 1 1 



Employee Group Jobcode Listing 



7225 

7228 

7232 

7241 

7249 

7254 

7258 

7264 

7277 

7305 

7306 

7309 

7313 

7315 

7322 

7325 

7330 

7332 

7337 

7340 

7381 

7382 

7387 

7434 



HH Mechanical Shou Sprv 

T 

Scmor Maintenance Connoile: 

Automotive Mechanic :Sprv 1 

Automotive Machinist) Sprv 1 

Maintenance Machinist Sprv 1 

• I 
Auto Body &. Fender Wrk Sprv 1 

City Shops Asa SuperTmrnr.est 

Metal Fabricator 

Automotive Body &. Fiender Writ 

Car and Auto Parcier 

Automotive Machinist 

Auto Machinist Asst Sprv 

Auto Body&Feariex Wrk Asst Sprv 

General Utility Mechanic 

Sr General UtHiiy Mechanic 

Mjn'ntmancc Machinist 

Main Machinist Asst Sprv 

Maintenance Controller 

Automotive Mechanic 

Automotive Mechanic Asst Sprv 

Upholsterer 

Maintenance Machinist Helper 



Bar^omjng Unit 


Bar^aram^ Sub Unit 


03 


A 


01 


D 


01 


D 


01 


D 


01 


D 


01 


D 


01 


D 


01 


K 


01 


D 


03 


A 


01 


D 


01 


D 


01 


D 


01 


D 


01 


D 


01 


D 


01 


D 


01 


D 


01 


K 


01 


K 


01 


D 


01 


D 


01 


D 


01 


D 


01 


K 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Item 13 - File 00-1860 

Department: 

Item: 



Description: 



Human Resources Department 

Ordinance implementing Amendment No. 3 to the 1997- 
2001 Memorandum of Understanding between the 
Laborers, Local Union No. 261, and the City and County 
of San Francisco by appending the following list of past 
practices pursuant to Article V.C. of the Memorandum of 
Understanding. 

The proposed ordinance would amend the existing 
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the 
Laborers, Local Union No. 261. The proposed 
Amendment codifies existing practices and will not result 
in additional costs to the City, as reported by Ms. Alice 
Villagomez of HRD in Attachment I (see Comment No. 1). 

In 1997 the Board of Supervisors approved an MOU with 
the Laborers, Local 261, for the four-year period from July 
1, 1997 through June 30, 2001. The MOU with the 
Laborers, Local 261, covers 22 classifications, as shown in 
Attachment II, comprising a total of 934 full-time 
equivalent (FTE) positions. 

The proposed ordinance would approve Amendment No. 3 
to the subject MOU with Laborers, Local 261. Ms. 
Villagomez states that Amendment No. 3 contains the 
following existing practices not specifically stated in the 
current MOU as previously approved by the Board of 
Supervisors. 

Call-Back Pay: 

Covered employees who are called back to work after they 
have departed from the work site at the end of their shift 
would receive a minimum of four hours of pay at the 
applicable rate of pay, including overtime and premium 
pay. Employees who are on stand-by or who work at 
remote locations where City housing is supplied would not 
be covered by this call-back provision. 

General Working Conditions : 

(a) Management must approve voluntary early start 
times, 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



(b) management shall offer overtime on a rotating basis, 

(c) the City would provide parking at no cost to the 
covered employee, if such parking is available, 

(d) the City would supply the covered employee tools 
which are necessary for the performance of the job, 

(e) management would conduct safety meetings in 
accordance with the California Occupational Safety 
and Health Administration (CAL-OSHA) 
requirements, 

(f) the City would grant time-off to the covered employee 
for the renewal of required special licenses, such as 
licenses for spraying weed killers and pesticides, 
except for driver's licenses, 

(g) each work site, division, bureau, or section would 
establish a vacation sign-up procedure and vacation 
schedules based on seniority at the individual work 
site, 

(h) the City would not require covered employees to wear 

uniforms unless such employees are currently 

required to do so, 
(i) management would provide personal clean up time 

before meal breaks, at the end of the work day, and 

for gardeners after spraying for pests, 
(j) the City would continue to provide lockers as 

available, 
(k) the City would allow covered employees to take City 

vehicles home when assigned by their supervisor, and 
(1) management would notify the Union regarding any 

proposed disciplinary action upon the affected 

employee's request. 

According to Ms. Villagomez, covered employees would 
have access to available parking on City property but 
would not be guaranteed a parking space. Ms. Villagomez 
also advises that the departments may assign covered 
employees to take City vehicles home because there is no 
space on department property to house the vehicle 
overnight or because the employee will be going directly 
to a job site when reporting to work the next day. 

Staffing Provisions: 

The City has agreed to maintain the staffing levels for 
Class 7514 Laborer and Class 3417 Gardener that existed 
when the City established the position of Class 7501 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Environmental Service Worker. Ms. Villagomez states 
that the City established the Class 7501 Environmental 
Service Worker in 1998 to function as a helper position to 
gardeners and laborers. According to Ms. Villagomez, at 
the time that Class 7501 was established, the City and 
Union agreed that the 7501 positions were not intended to 
be for the purpose of reducing the number of laborers and 
gardeners. 

Additionally, the proposed Amendment contains 
guidelines for the City's volunteer and alternative work 
programs impacting bargaining unit work that are also 
consistent with past practices. Such guidelines include 
that (a) volunteers and participants in alternative work 
programs will only perform ancillary bargaining unit 
work, (b) the City will only continue to assign bargaining 
unit work to volunteer and alternative work programs 
with the Union's concurrence and will meet and confer 
with the Union prior to implementing new volunteer and 
alternative work programs that impact the bargaining 
unit, (c) the City will assign bargaining unit members to 
direct the work of volunteers and alternative work 
program participants as appropriate, (d) management will 
not allow volunteers and alternative work program 
participants to use power tools, and (e) the City will 
displace volunteers and alternative work program 
participants prior to laying off laborers and gardeners. 
Ms. Villagomez states that the City has been operating 
under a verbal understanding with the union regarding 
types of duties performed by volunteers and participants 
in alternative work programs that would otherwise be 
performed by bargaining unit members. 

Provisions Applying to the Public Utilities Commission: 

The Public Utilities Commission (PUC) would provide (a) 
housing at Moccasin Powerhouse, which is located near 
Yosemite National Park, for covered employees who are 
working at PUC facilities, in accordance with established 
policies and rates established in the Annual Salary 
Ordinance, (b) transportation for covered employees who 
are assigned on a short-term basis to a different work 
location, and (c) meals and lodging to covered employees 
who are assigned to work out of the Early Intake 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

bunkbouse, wbicb is located at the Hetch-Hetchy 
Reservoir, when the bunkhouse is open. 

Provisions Applying to the Recreation and Park 
Department: 

The Recreation and Park Department (RPD) would 
continue the current bid system for gardeners. Under the 
current system, once each year in November gardeners 
are able to bid on positions within RPD which became 
vacant during the prior year and are awarded such 
positions based on seniority. Additionally, the RPD would 
provide sign-up sheets for gardeners to work at Camp 
Mather, which is the City family camp located near 
Yosemite National Park. RPD will pay travel time for 
covered employees working at Camp Mather, and room 
and board while working at Camp Matber will be 
provided in accordance with the Administrative Provision 
of the Annual Salary Ordinance. 

The proposed amendment states that overtime at Camp 
Mather will be awarded in accordance with existing Camp 
Mather rules, which include (a) establishing sign-up 
sheets in March of each year, (b) selecting gardeners 
based on departmental seniority, (c) approval by the 
departmental supervisor, and (d) assigning gardeners for 
2 week sessions in the months of May and September for 
twelve 8-hour days, including weekend work, which will 
be paid in accordance with the subject MOU. According to 
Ms. Villagomez, gardeners who are assigned to Camp 
Mather are paid at their regular hourly rate for weekday 
work and are paid at time and one-half for weekend work, 
in accordance with the subject MOU. 

Comments: 1. As noted above, the intent of the proposed amendment 

is to enumerate and codify existing practices by 
appending the amendment to the MOU. According to Ms. 
Villagomez, Local 261 identified existing practices 
affecting bargaining unit members that were not included 
in this MOU, and HRD researched and verified such 
existing practices. The City entered into a tentative 
agreement with Local 261 regarding the existing 
practices. Ms. Villagomez advises that the subject 
amendment is part of the City effort to update all of its 
collective bargaining agreements to identify and include 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



existing practices witbin tbe applicable MOU. Ms. 
Villagomez states tbat all existing practices included in 
the proposed amendment were in existence at least since 
July 1, 1996, or one year before tbe current MOU went 
into effect on July 1, 1997. Ms. Villagomez advises tbat 
Article V.C. of tbe previously approved MOU provides for 
tbe proposed subject inclusion of past practices and 
defines tbe criteria for selecting past practices. 

2. According to Ms. Pamela Levin of tbe Controller's 
Office, based on tbe HRD's determination tbat tbe items 
covered by tbe proposed amendment to tbe existing MOU 
are past practices, tbere would be no additional costs to 
the City as a result of this MOU amendment. As stated 
previously, according to Ms. Villagomez, all of the 
practices outlined in the proposed amendment have been 
in effect since at least July 1, 1996 and related 
expenditures, if any, are included in the applicable 
department budgets. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed ordinance. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



RE: Amendments 




.OCT.26'00 12:02 FR 



City and County of San Francisco 



October 25, 2000 

TO: Harvey Roise 

Budget Analyst, Board of Supervisors 

FROM: Alice Vilkgomez 

Deputy Director, Employee Relations Division 



. Attachment I 
Page 1 ot Z 

Department of Human Resource: 



ANDREA R. GOURDINE 
HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR 



to various MOUs enumerating past practices 



These amendments codify long standing past practices funded by existing departmental 
budgetary allocations. As such, they do not result in any additional funding. 

Twenty-two collective bargaining agreements negotiated for the period of July 1,1997 
through June 30, 2001 call for the identification and enumeration of past practices to be 
appended to the master agreement 

The following language is the referenced provision identical in all of the affected 
agreements: 



PAST PRACTICE 



The parties to this Agreement shall meet for the purpose of enumerating all 
past practices. The parties shall also meet to identify the current Civil 
Service Rules that are arbitrable. For the purposes of this section, a "past 
practice" shall mean either (i) an agreement between the City and the Union 
that has been in existence for at least one year and that addresses an 
appropriate subject to include in the collective bargaining agreement, or (ii) a 
known and well-established course of conduct that has been in existence for 
■ at leas} one year and that addresses an appropriate subject to include in the 
collective bargaining agreement 



Any disputes regarding whether a past practice exists shall be 
submitted to binding arbitration no later than January 1, 1998, except 
that this date may be extended for up to an additional three months if 
requested by either party. The parties shall mutually agree to an 
arbitrator, pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement The 
arbitrator's sole authority shall be to deterrninc whether a past 
practice exists, as defined in this section. The arbitrator's decision 
shall be final and binding upon the parties, as provided in Charter 
Section A8.409. 



2. 



All past practices agreed by the parties to be included in the 
Agreement shall be appended to the Agreement and approved 
pursuant to the provisions of Charter Section A8.409, including 
submission for approval by the Board of Supervisors. All past 
practices to be included in the Agreement by award shall be 



*4 Gough Street • San Francisco, CA 94103-1233 



OCT 26'00 12:03 FR 



. Attachment I 
Page 2 of 2 



appended to the Agreement, subject to implementation pursuant to 
Charter Section A8.409. Thereafter, all alleged violations of 
appended past practices will be subject to the grievance and 
arbitration procedure of the Agreement 

There shall be no change or modification of any past practice or other understanding 
between the parties (except for those matters governed by the Civil Service Rules excluded 
from arbitration) unhj the parties reach final agreement on the inclusion of past practices 
into the agreement on until the arbitration award is issued pursuant to the provisions herein 
whichever is later. Thereafter, the parties agree that all past practices and other 
understandings between the parties not expressly memorialized and incorporated into this 
Agreement shall no longer be enforceable. 

The City and the unions began the process of the identification, research, verification, 
confirmation and drafting of submitted lists of practices in August of 1997. Seventeen of the 
twenty- two unions s ubmi tted lists of practices by January 1998. The three month extension 
provided under the past practices provisions was activated and the period was extended to 
April 1, 1998. 

The process to research, verify and determine which of the practices advanced by the unions 
met the criteria and definition of the past practices provision was lengthy in so tar that each 
practice had to be verified with all affected City departments and or when a practice only 
had been identified for one City department such practice was then confirmed and then 
codified for that one dlepartmenL 

This is the first set of amendments for the seven subject MOUs that reflect the completion of 
the process. Of the seven subject MOUs, there was one item re l a tin g to work day/ work 
week which was advanced to arbitration by the Glaziers. The Arbitrator ruled in favor of the 
City's position and asisuch the practice in dispute is not contained in the list of submissions 
under amendment # 1 to the MOU between the City and Glaziers Union Local No.718. 

The Employee Relations Division is continuing in finalizing the amendments for other 
subject MOUs for which practices were either advanced to arbitration and or required 
further clarification and revision 

The process has been a very lengthy one since it involved ail affected city departments and 
in some cases specific work sites for each list of practices identified by a union for the 
numerous subject MOUs. 

The enumeration andl codification of working condition practices will be formalized as 
terms and conditions 'of employment appropriately appended to the respective collective 
bargaining agreements 1 with the ratification of these amendments. 



OCT 25'00 14:21 FR 



Attachment 1 1 



Employe* Group Jobcode Listing 



261 Laborers Int, Local 261 

Job code Tide 

3402 Fanner 

3417 Gardener 

341 S Gardener Assistant Supervisor 

3419 Municirjal Stadium Groundstor 

3422 Park Seenon Supervisor 

: I 

3424 Pest Control Specialist 

3425 Nursery Specialist- 
3430 Chief Nursery Specialist 

3434 Tree Topper 

3435 Arfaorist Technician 

3436 Tree Topper Supervisor 1 
7215 General Laborer Supervisor 1 
7220 Asphalt Finisher Supervisor 1 
7246 Sewer. Repair Supervisor 

728 1 Street Environ Svcs Oprs Supv 

7404 Asphalt Finisher 

742 1 Sewer Maintenance Worker 

7458 Switch Repairer 

7501 F.Tivim nrrfnraK Sf-Tvir-g Worker 

7502 Asphalt Worker 
75 14 General Laborer 
7540 Track Maintenance Worker 



B a r ga i ni n g Unit Baxzatctrig Sun <7nrt 



01 


N 


01 


N 


01 


N 


01 


N 


01 


M 


01 


N 


01 


N 


01 


N 


01 


N 


01 


N 


01 


N 


01 


N 


01 


N 


01 


N 


01 


N 


01 


N 


01 


N 


01 


N 


01 


N 


01 


N 


01 


N 


01 


N 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Item 14 - File 99-0091 

Note: This item was re-referred by the Board of Supervisors to the Finance and 
Labor Committee on March 8, 1999. According to the Office of the Sponsor of 
the proposed ordinance, the ordinance is unchanged from the original 
version. Hence, this report is substantially the same as the report previously 
issued to the Finance and Labor Committee when the item was last heard at 
the March 3, 1999 meeting of the Committee. 



Department: 



Item: 



Description: 



Department of Public Works (DPW) 
Recreation and Park Department (RPD) 

Ordinance transferring jurisdiction over certain real 
property located at Drumm Street between Clay and 
Washington Streets, described generally as Assessor's 
Block 202, Lots 6, 14 and a portion of 15, excluding the 
subsurface rights thereof, and a portion of Assessor's 
Block 203, Lot 14, from the Department of Public Works 
to the Recreation and Park Commission; and providing 
that no building, improvement or structure may be 
constructed on the surfaces of such parcels and adjoining 
Assessor's Block 202, Lot 18. 

The proposed ordinance would transfer jurisdiction over 
certain real property from DPW to RPD excluding the 
subsurface rights to a portion of the property. According 
to Ms. Elizabeth Goldstein, General Manager of the RPD, 
approval of this ordinance would preserve the property for 
use as open space subject to the possible construction of 
an underground parking facility on this property. The 
construction of an underground parking facility would 
require separate approval by the Board of Supervisors. 

On July 18, 1994, the City acquired from the State certain 
real property comprised of Assessor's Block 202, Lots 6, 14 
and portion of 15, and a portion of Assessor's Block 203, 
Lot 14 (collectively, the "Property"). The Property is 
located immediately northwest of Justin Herman Plaza, 
between the Embarcadero to the west and Davis Street to 
the east, and between Washington Street to the north and 
Clay Street to the south, as shown on the attached map. 
The Property is currently held under the jurisdiction of 
the Department of Public Works. The Recreation and 
Park Commission has jurisdiction over adjoining 
property, Assessor's Block 202, Lot 18 (Lot 18). The 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



subject Property and the adjoining property are used as 
open space. 

The proposed ordinance would subject the Property and 
the adjoining Lot 18 to the restriction that no building, 
improvement or structure may be constructed on the 
surfaces of the Property and Lot 18, provided that the 
following improvements would not be prohibited: (a) 
landscape improvements such as pedestrian pathways, 
gazebos, tables, benches lighting fixtures, trash 
receptacles, automatic public toilets, bicycle racks and 
drinking fountains, and (b) improvements necessary to 
the functioning of a potential underground parking 
facility if such improvements cannot be constructed 
underground. 

Under the proposed ordinance, jurisdiction over portions 
of the Property's subsurface, specifically Assessor's Block 
202, Lots 6, 14, and a portion of 15, is to be retained by 
DPW because on September 18, 1996, the Board of 
Supervisors preliminarily endorsed construction of an 
underground public parking facility with a capacity for up 
to 350 vehicles on this Property (File No. 47-96-8). This 
endorsement by the Board of Supervisors was subject to 
the condition that construction of an underground 
parking facility would not commence until the City 
executed a contract with a developer for a major 
renovation of the Ferry Building. In December of 1999, 
the Board of Supervisors approved a ground lease with 
Ferry Building Investors, LLC, for the rehabilitation of 
the Ferry Building. 

On November 4, 1996, the Board of Supervisors approved 
the Final Environmental Impact Report for the 
Alternatives to Replacement of the Embarcadero Freeway 
and the Terminal Separator Structure, which set forth 
several surface traffic improvements, including the 
widening of Washington and Clay Streets between Davis 
and Drumm Streets, which would consist of certain 
improvements to a portion of Block 203, Lot 14 (File No. 
271-96-3). The proposed ordinance states that to "widen 
Washington and Clay Streets, the property line for 
Assessor's block 203, Lot 14 would be shifted 
approximately 17.40 feet to the south on the Washington 
Street frontage and approximately 17.61 feet to the north 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Comment: 



Recommendation: 



on the Clay Street frontage and two portions of Assessor's 
Block 203 (collectively the "Reserved Street Widening 
Parcels), will thereby be a part of the widened 
Washington and Clay Streets." 

Ms. Mariam Morley of the City Attorney's Office states 
that these Reserved Street Widening Parcels do not 
consist of that portion of Block 203, Lot 14 included in the 
Property proposed to be transferred from the jurisdiction 
of DPW to the jurisdiction of RPD. However, this proposed 
ordinance states "In the event that Washington and Clay 
streets are not widened within five years after the 
effective date of this Ordinance, the Director of Property 
shall recommend to the Board of Supervisors that, subject 
to the California Environmental Quality Act and other 
applicable laws, the jurisdiction of the Reserved Street 
Widening Parcels be transferred to the Recreation and 
Park Commission" and that the property comprising the 
Reserved Street Widening Parcels be subjected to the 
same development limitations as the subject Property. 
Therefore, according to Ms. Morley, the Reserved Street 
Widening Parcels, as land adjoining the subject Property 
described above, may, in five years, serve as preserved 
open space in combination with the Property. 

As previously noted, the Property is currently used as 
open space. Ms. Goldstein states that RPD already 
provides gardeners to maintain the Property, excluding 
the portion of Assessor's Block 203, Lot 14, which is 
maintained by DPW. Ms. Goldstein advises that RPD is 
not planning any immediate improvements to the 
property that would result in fiscal impact from the 
proposed jurisdictional transfer. However, Ms. Goldstein 
notes that, in the long term, RPD would have 
responsibility for the site, as with all other RPD property, 
and future capital expenditures may be requested for 
permissible park related improvements. 

Approval of the proposed ordinance is a policy matter for 
the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 




Harvey M. Rose 



Supervisor Yee 
Supervisor Bierman 
President Ammiano 
Clerk of the Board 
Controller 
Steve Kawa 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



■ill C •». i. .' = 



~:\ ilNri.' -.j>iG EU^EAL" 



Attachment 



yj^ 




"=1 



h A 



D 

p L_J 1 

□ 



cf 




r 







k 



m 



p.-asV 




City Hall 
Y£\ Dr. Carlton B. Geodlett Place, Room 244 
BOARD of SUPERVISORS ["[_ ^jf^ES W" IH San Francisco 94102-4689 

VZ&dMM&mPLmJ.Sl Tel. No. 554-5184 

Fax No. 554-5163 
£v/ TDD/TTY No. 544-5227 



NOTICE OF CANCELLED MEETING 



t/co 
c^««^ ^FINANCE AND LABOR COMMITTEE 

SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 



NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the meeting of the Finance and Labor Committee 
scheduled for Wednesday, November 8, 2000 at 10:00 a.m. at 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett 
Place, Room 263, City Hall, San Francisco, California, has been cancelled. 



Gloria L. Young, Clerk of the Board 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 
MM - 6 20CQ 

SAN FRANCISCO 
p UBUC LIBRARY 



Cancelled Meeting Notice/Ad 1/21/00 



#[AII Committees] 
City and County of San Francisco Government n n r„^ 
Meeting Minutes ***> Ub£J "^ SeC " on 

Finance and Labor Committee 
Members: Supervisors Leland Yee, Sue Bierman, Tom Ammiano 

Clerk: Mary Red 

Wednesday, November 15, 2000 10:00 AM City Hall, Room 263 

Regular Meeting 

Members Present: Leland Y. Yee, Sue Bierman, Tom Ammiano. 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

Meeting Convened 

NOV 2 2000 

The meeting convened at 10:05 a.m. _ 

SAN FRANCISCO 
REGULAR AGENDA PUBLIC LIBRARY 



001715 [This project will reduce odors and air pollution in the Bayview/Hunters Point Neighborhood from the 
discharge of raw digester gas into atmosphere] 

Resolution approving the design-build agreement for the Southeast Cogeneration Facility Contract, CS-520. 
(Public Utilities Commission) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

9/27/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

10/18/00, CONTINUED. Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; David Henzl, Hetch Hetchy, Water and Power; 

Supervisor Yee; Supervisor Ammiano; Marie Harrison; Espanola Jackson; Kevin Barry, Local 39. 

Continued to November 15, 2000. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Laurie Park, Acting General Manager, Hetch 

Hetchy: Supervisor Yee. 

Amended to limit contract amount not to exceed $3,181, 743 on page 1, line 3 and page 2, line 5; new title. 

AMENDED. 

Resolution approving the design-build agreement for the Southeast Cogeneration Facility Contract, CS-520, 

not to exceed $3,181,743. (Public Utilities Commission) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



City and County of San Francisco 1 Printed at 12.12 PM on 11/16/00 



Finance and Labor Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



Sovember 15, 2000 



001801 [Home Ownership Assistance Loan Fund - Extra Credit Teacher Home Purchase Program] 
Supervisor Becerril 

Ordinance amending Section 10.1 17-76 of the Administrative Code to clarify nature of authorized loans and 

add additional source of funds. 

10/16/00, ASSIGNED UNDER 30 DAY RULE to Finance and Labor Committee, expires on 1 1/15/2000 Thirty day rule waived. File 

001844. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Laurie Pantell, Supervisor Becerril's Aide; Joe 
LaTorre, Mayor's Office of Housing; Supervisor Bierman; Maggie Davis, Mayor's Office of Housing. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



001925 [Government Funding, 5250,000] 

Supervisors Leno, Bierman, Newsom, Ammiano, Katz 

Ordinance appropriating 5250,000 from the General Fund Reserve-Queer Youth Shelter to fund the housing 
program for the homeless lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and questioning young adults, for the 
Department of Public Health for fiscal year 2000-2001. 

(Fiscal impact.) 

10/30/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Supervisor Leno; Monique Zmuda, 
Department of Public Health; Supervisor Yee; Jeffrey Sherman, Episcopal Community Services; Tommi 
Avicolli Mecca, Housing Rights; Mitch Thompson, EVRC; Brian Cheu, LYRIC, Michael Cain, EVRC; 
Supervisor Ammiano. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



001930 [Lease, 2500 Market Street] 

Supervisors Leno, Bierman, Newsom, Ammiano, Katz 

Resolution authorizing a lease of real property at 2500 Market Street on behalf of the Department of Public 
Health. 

10/30/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Super\'isor Leno; Monique Zmuda, 
Department of Public Health; Supervisor Yee; Jeffrey Sherman, Episcopal Community Services; Tommi 
Avicolli Mecca, Housing Rights; Mitch Thompson, EVRC; Brian Cheu, LYRIC; Michael Cain, EVRC. 
Supervisor Ammiano. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 12:12PM on 11/16AH) 



Finance and Labor Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



November IS, 2000 



001698 [Lease of 242 acres of land located in Sunol, California (under the jurisdiction of PUC) to Mission Valley 
Rock Company for mining purposes] 

Resolution adopting findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act; and authorizing the Public 
Utilities Commission to enter into a forty-year lease with Mission Valley Rock Company for mining certain 
real property located in Alameda County, California. (Public Utilities Commission) 

Supervisor Ammiano dissenting in committee. 

9/27/00, ASSIGNED UNDER 30 DAY RULE to Finance and Labor Committee, expires on 1 1/1/2000. 
1 1/6/00, SUBSTITUTED. Supervisor Becerril submitted a substitute resolution bearing same title. 
1 1/6/00, ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Supervisor Ammiano; John Mullane, General 

Manager, Public Utilities Commission; John Edgcomb, Environmental Attorney; John Miller; Bree James, 

Save Our Sunol (SOS); Patricia Stillman (SOS); John Daimanin; Jane Murphy; Bob Frillman; Gray Brechin, 

Professor, U.C. Berkeley; Derk Johnson; Laura Mirkarimi, Phd.; Supervisor Yee; Ted Lakey, Deputy City 

Attorney. 

Supervisor Ammiano dissenting in committee. 

RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Bierman 

Noes: 1 - Ammiano 



001834 [Proposals for the use of 242 acres of Public Utilities Commission land in Sunol] 
Supervisor Ammiano 

Hearing to consider alternative proposals for 242 acres of Public Utilities Commission land on a portion of 
Parcel 65 located in Alameda County Lands, Sunol, and to compare other proposals with the proposed 40 year 
lease with Mission Valley Rock Company, with respect to the following: total revenue generated; ecological 
impact on the local ecosystem; community support and input; water storage; impact on restoration of Water 
Temple; and other issues. 

10/16/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Supervisor Ammiano; John Miller; Patricia Stillman, Save Our Sunol (SOS); 
Bree James, SOS; Irv Tiessen; Gerry Boemiller, Trustee, Sunol Glen School; Diane Tiessen; John Edgcomb, 
Environmental Attorney; Robb Marshall; Derk Johnson; Gray Breckin, Professor, U. C. Berkeley; Dr. Paul 
Mirkarimi; Bob Frillman, SOS. 

CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



001863 [Authorizing extension and renewal of license for the use of real property on behalf of the City, with 
Continental 155 5th Corporation (the property owner) and Wells Fargo Bank (the tenant)] 

Resolution authorizing an amendment to extend the term of an existing one-year license and hold harmless 
agreement for the excavation, shoring, underpinning and other construction activities ("Agreement") with 
Continental 155 5th Corporation ("Owner"), and the sole tenant in possession, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 
("Wells Fargo") for an additional three years, to November 17, 2003, to provide the City the right to enter the 
real property at 155 5th Street as needed to complete construction of the Moscone Center Expansion Project 
("Moscone West"), and authorizing a reciprocal agreement to provide Ownei similar rights of access in 
relation to the Moscone West site should Owner require such access for future construction. (Real Estate 
Department) 

10/25/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Tony DeLucchi, Real Estate Department. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 12:12PM on 11/16/00 



Finance and Labor Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



.November 15, 2000 



001876 [Authorizing Issuance of Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds, 8th and Howard Family Housing) 
Mayor 

Resolution authorizing the issuance and delivery of multifamily housing revenue bonds (as defined herein) in 
an aggregate principal amount not to exceed SI 1,750,000 for the purpose of providing financing for a 
multifamily rental housing project; authorizing the sale of bonds; approving the form of and authorizing the 
execution of an indenture providing the terms and conditions of the bonds; approving the form of and 
authorizing the execution of a bond purchase contract providing the terms and conditions for the sale of the 
bonds; approving the form of and authorizing the execution of a regulatory agreement and declaration of 
restrictive covenants; approving the form of and authorizing the execution of a loan agreement; approving the 
form of and authorizing the execution of an intercreditor agreement; approving the form of and authorizing the 
preparation and distribution of a preliminary official statement and the preparation and distribution of an 
official statement relating to the bonds; approving and authorizing the execution and delivery of any document 
necessary to implement this resolution; making low income housing findings; ratifying and approving any 
action heretofore taken in connection with the bonds and the project; and related matters. 
10/23/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee Sponsor requests this item be scheduled for consideration at 
the November 8, 2000 meeting. 
The November 8, 2000 meeting was cancelled. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Joe LaTorre, Mayor's Office of Housing; 
Supervisor Yee. 

RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



001894 [Reserved Funds, Department of Public Health) 

Hearing to consider release of reserved funds, Department of Public Health-Community Health Network 
(Fiscal Year 2000-2001 Budget), in the amount of SI, 098,463, to fund overtime expenditures of San Francisco 
General Hospital and Laguna Honda Hospital. (Public Health Department) 
10/25/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee 

Heard of Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Monique Zmuda, Department of Public 

Health; Supervisor Ammiano; Supervisor Yee. 

Release of reserved funds in the amount of $1,098,463 approved. 

APPROVED AND FILED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



001899 [Reserved Funds, Administrative Services) 

Hearing to consider release of reserved funds, Administrative Services (File 101-94-76, Ordinance No. 97-95) 
for planning, design and implementation of two capital improvement projects: Security Room Equipment 
Replacement $409,475, and Gateway Ballroom Audio Equipment Upgrade S483,000, which total $892,475. 
(Administrative Services Department) 

10/25/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Leonard Tom; Administrative Services. 
Release of reserves request amended to only release funds in the amount of $483,000. 
APPROVED AND FILED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 12:12PM on 11/1&V0 



Finance and Labor Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



November 15, 2000 



001957 [Healthcare for Indigents Program] 

Resolution authorizing adoption of the County description of proposed expenditure of California Healthcare 
for Indigents Program (CHIP) funds for fiscal year 2000-01 and that the President or duly authorized 
representative of the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco can certify the County 
Description of Proposed Expenditure of CHIP funds for fiscal year 2000-01. (Public Health Department) 
1 1/1/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. Department requests this item be calendared at the November 
at the November 1 5, 2000 meeting. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Jeffrey Leong, Department of Public Health. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



001603 [Airport Curbside Management Program] 

Resolution authorizing the Airport Commission ("Commission") to approve the continuation of a contract with 
ShuttlePort/DAJA SFO Joint Venture to operate the Airport Curbside Management Program for up to four 
additional one year options commencing November 15, 2000. (Airport Commission) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

9/1 1/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

9/27/00, CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR. Heard in Committee. Speakers; Barry Taranto, United Taxicab Workers. 
CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



001648 [Special Assistants] 
Supervisor Yee 

Hearing to discuss the use of and need for special assistants, and whether or not some of these special assistant 
positions would more appropriately be filled through the civil service process. 
9/18/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard to Committee. Speakers: Supervisor Yee; Michele Modena, Department of Human Resources; Kate 
Favetti, Civil Service Commission; Lisa Feldstein; Beryl Magilavy; Charles Marsteller; Duane Reno, 
Attorney, Local 21; John Darmanin; Jim V.; Patrick Shaw; David Novogradsky, Executive Director, Local 21; 
Supervisor Bierman. 

CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



ADJOURNMENT 

The meeting adjourned at 2:05 p.m. 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 12:12PM on 11/WOO 



tBudget Analyst Reponj 
Susan Horn 



.254 

6/00 



CITY AND COUNTY 




Main 



OF SAN FRANCISCO 



'nUb^-Govt.Doc.Sect.on 



SAN 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 



NOV 1 4 2000 

BUDGET ANALYST SAN FRANCISCO 

1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 554-7642 => UBIJC LIBRARY 
FAX (415) 252-0461 



November 9, 2000 



TO: Finance and Labor Committee 



FROM: ; Budget Analyst 

SUBJECT: November 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

'its' 

Item 1 - File 00-1715 

Note: This item was continued by the Finance and Labor Committee at its 
meeting of October 18, 2000. 



Department: 
Item: 



Contract 
Amount: 



Source of Funds: 



Public Utilities Commission (PUC) 

Resolution authorizing a Design-Build Contract between 
the PUC and the Sierra Diesel Detroit Allison (SDDA) 
company to construct a Cogeneration Facility at the 
Southeast Water Pollution Control Plant. 



The subject resolution would approve a Design-Build 
Contract between the City and Sierra Diesel Detroit Allison 
(SDDA) in an amount not to exceed $3,181,743. According 
to Ms. Laurie Park of the PUC, Acting General Manager of 
Hetch Hetchy, the maximum amount the PUC would be 
authorized to pay SDDA under the subject contract is 
$3,181,743. However, the proposed contract states that, if 
necessary, the PUC would be authorized to adjust the total 
contract amount downward, based on the liquidated 
damages outlined in Comment No. 10 below. 

Renewable Energy Generation Project Appropriation, 
Hetch Hetchy FY 2000-2001 Budget 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Budget: 



A summary budget for the proposed $3,181,743 contract 
with Sierra Diesel Detroit Allison is as follows: 



Project 


Amount 


Installation of Cogeneration Engine 


$794,147 


Design and Construction of Engine 


770,066 


Electrical Instrumentation Equipment 


216,475 


Fuel System 


170,703 


Overhead 


117,159 


Interest Expense 


112,028 


Engineering and Management 


89,000 


Labor for Engine Components 


65,065 


Cooling System 


64,150 


Exhaust System 


53,908 


Additional digester gas storage 


41,500 


Miscellaneous Expenses* 


39,015 


Radiator Cooling System 


33,438 


Lubrication System 


30,220 


Starting System 


25,531 


General and Administration 


22,531 


Generator 


13,974 


One-year warranty (in addition to standard warranty of one year) 


12,000 


Control System 


8,550 


Bases (Concrete Pad) 


1,262 


Construction Contingency (3 Percent of Total Contract Costs) 


95,468 


Subtotal 


$2,776,190 


Net Profit (14.6 percent) 


405,552 


Total Contract Cost 


$3,181,742 



Description: 



*Miscellaneous Expenses in the above budget include 
testing, travel, special tools, manuals, and shipping costs. 

The subject resolution would authorize a Design-Build 
Contract to design and build a Cogeneration Facility at the 
Southeast Water Pollution Control Plant in a maximum 
amount of $3,181,743 between the PUC and the Sierra 
Diesel Detroit Allison (SDDA), a subsidiary of Stewart & 
Stevenson, Inc. The proposed Cogeneration Facility would 
allow the PUC to capture gas emitted during the sewage 
treatment process at the Southeast Water Pollution Control 
Plant and reuse that gas to generate its own electricity, 
therefore reducing the amount of electricity that Hetch 
Hetchy would be required to supply the Southeast Water 
Pollution Control Plant from other sources in order to 
operate. In addition, Ms. Park of the PUC advises that 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

2 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



reusing tbese digester gases would reduce odors currently 
created by the Plant in the Bayview/Hunter's Point 
neighborhood. (See Attachment I, provided by the PUC, for 
additional details on the proposed Cogeneration Facility). 
Ms. Park advises that the PUC will receive a total 
estimated $1.15 million subsidy (approximately $230,000 
annually) to help fund development costs of the proposed 
Cogeneration Facility from the California Energy 
Commission (CEC) during the first five years of the 
Cogeneration Facility operation, as discussed in Comment 
No. 8 below. 

According to the PUC, the PUC issued a Request for 
Qualifications (RFQ) to 10 firms and received responses 
from two firms. Subsequently, the PUC issued a Request 
for Proposal (RFP) in February of 1999 to design and 
construct the subject Cogeneration Facility and received 
two proposals, one from SDDA and the other from Biller- 
McCoy Builders, Inc., as stated in Attachment I, provided 
by the PUC (see Comment No. 7 below). According to Ms. 
Park, the PUC considered SDDA's to be the only responsive 
bidder, since Biller-McCoy Builders had not participated in 
the required Request for Qualifications process, as 
explained in Attachment I. In any event, SDDA submitted 
the lowest bid of $3,094,804,! which was $3,533,808 less 
than the cost proposal of $6,628,612 submitted by Biller- 
McCoy Builders, Inc. (see Comment No. 7 below). According 
to Ms. Park, SDDA's bid was $3,533,808 less than the bid 
submitted by Biller-McCoy Builders largely due to the type 
of Cogeneration Facility SDDA proposed to build, which is a 
more conventional approach to this kind of project. In 
September of 1999, in addition to the fact that the PUC 
considered SDDA to be the only responsive bidder, the PUC 
adopted a resolution approving the selection of SDDA, 
based on the criteria discussed in Attachment I, and 
authorizing the PUC to negotiate a contract with SDDA. 

According to Ms. Park, the RFP had requested that firms 
submit cost proposals based on a variety of purchase 



1 According to Ms. Park, SDDA's original bid of $3,094,804 increased by $86,939 to the total of 
the subject Design-Build Contract of $3,181,743 because of additional requests made by the 
PUC during its contract negotiation with SDDA, including additional digester gas storage and 
an additional radiator. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

3 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

options, including the City purchasing outright the 
Cogeneration Facility upon its completion, as well as the 
firm owning the Cogeneration Facility and selling the 
electricity generated to the City. Ms. Park advises that 
PUC staff, after selecting SDDA for the project, determined 
that it would be more cost effective for the City to purchase 
the Cogeneration Facility outright, as stated in Attachment 

1. According to Ms. Park, the PUC then decided to negotiate 
with SDDA for a separate Operation and Maintenance 
Contract in the amount of $1,157,540, in addition to the 
subject Design-Build Contract (see Comment No. 2 below). 
According to Ms. Park, at its PUC meeting of September 12, 
2000, the PUC approved the subject Design-Build Contract 
but voted to continue the proposed separate Operation and 
Maintenance Contract pending further negotiations and 
analysis of the contract's potential costs and benefits to the 
City. 

Comments: 1. According to Ms. Park, construction on the proposed 

Cogeneration Facility is expected to begin in December of 
2000 and be completed by December 31, 2001. According to 
Ms. Park, the scheduled time for this contract is 305 
calendar days to substantial completion and sixty 
consecutive calendar days to final completion, for a total of 
365 days, or one year. Ms. Park advises that the PUC 
previously planned to complete the proposed Cogeneration 
Facility by December of 2000. However, an extended 
negotiation process between the PUC and SDDA has 
postponed the completion date for one year until December 
of 2001, according to Ms. Park. 

2. According to Ms. Park, the amount of the Operation and 
Maintenance Contract would be a total of $1,157,540 over 
the five years of the contract ($231,508 per year), 
commencing upon completion of the Cogeneration Plant, 
approximately in January of 2002 and terminating in 
January of 2007. However, as stated previously, the PUC 
has not yet approved the proposed Operation and 
Maintenance Contract. Ms. Park advises that PUC staff 
pursued the Operation and Maintenance Contract with 
SDDA in order to guarantee the full California Energy 
Commission (CEC) subsidy by holding the contractor 
responsible for meeting CEC requirements for electricity 
generation during the first five years of operating the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

4 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Cogeneration Facility. Under the proposed Maintenance 
and Operation contract, SDDA would be required to 
compensate the PUC for any lost CEC subsidy funds 
resulting from sub-optimal performance of the 
Cogeneration Facility during the first five years of 
operation, according to Ms. Park. 

Ms. Park advises that the PUC decided to negotiate the 
Operation and Maintenance Contract on a sole-source basis 
with SDDA and has not undergone a competitive bidding 
process for the Operation and Maintenance Contract for the 
Cogeneration Facility, because "it is unlikely that another 
contractor would be willing to guarantee the performance of 
a plant designed and constructed by someone else," as 
stated in Attachment I. Ms. Park advises that the PUC, in 
the process of negotiating a $1,157,540 contract amount 
($231,508 per year) with SDDA, confirmed that the contract 
amount would be roughly equal to what it would cost the 
PUC to operate and maintain the facility itself. 

3. According to Ms. Sheryl Bregman of the City Attorney's 
Office, the Operation and Maintenance Contract is not 
subject to approval of the Board of Supervisors since the 
proposed five-year contract for $1,157,540 does not meet 
provisions in the Charter, Section 9.118, requiring Board of 
Supervisors approval of contracts over $10 million and/or 
with terms of 10 years or more. 

4. Attachment I, provided by the PUC, explains that the 
PUC issued a single RFP for the design and construction of 
the proposed Cogeneration Facility, as opposed to using 
PUC employees and resources, and as opposed to issuing an 
RFP for the design portion of the project and undergoing a 
separate competitive bidding process for the construction of 
the Cogeneration Facility, because of the specialized nature 
of designing and building the Cogeneration Facility and due 
to the need to complete the project as quickly as possible in 
order to qualify for the full amount of an estimated $1.15 
million subsidy from the California Energy Commission 
(CEC), as discussed in Comment No. 8 below. 

5. As stated previously, under the proposed Operation and 
Maintenance Contract with SDDA, which is not the subject 
of this resolution, the PUC would pay to SDDA $231,508 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



annually for the five years of the contract, for a total of 
$1,157,540. After the five-year Operation and Maintenance 
Contract with SDDA expires, approximately in January of 
2007, the PUC will operate and maintain the Cogeneration 
Facility using Civil Service employees, according to Ms. 
Park. Ms. Park advises that operation and maintenance 
costs to the City for the 15 years after the initial five-year 
contract with SDDA would begin on an annual basis at an 
estimated $261,604 for the year 2007, and gradually 
increase annually with the age of the Cogeneration Facility 
to account for inflation, major overhauls and an increasing 
need for maintenance the longer the facility is operating, as 
shown in Attachment II, provided by the PUC. Therefore, 
total operation and maintenance costs for the first 20 years 
of operating the proposed Cogeneration Facility would be 
an estimated $6,785,110 (a total of $1,157,540 for the 
Operation and Maintenance Contract with SDDA for the 
first five years of the contract, a total of $4,865,551 in costs 
to the City for the following 15 years of operating the 
facility and a total of $762,019 for major overhauls over 
those 15 years). The PUC did not provide maintenance and 
operation cost estimates for the City beyond the first 20 
years of operation of the Cogeneration Facility. 

According to Ms. Park, the PUC completed an analysis 
finding that the costs to the PUC of maintaining and 
operating the Cogeneration Plant using City employees 
would be roughly equal to the cost of a Operation and 
Maintenance Contract with SDDA, as stated in Attachment 
I. However, the PUC still decided to pursue the Operation 
and Maintenance Contract with SDDA for the first five 
years, rather than maintain and operate the facility itself, 
because the goal in having the Cogeneration Facility 
maintained and operated by the same company that built it 
was to guarantee the full CEC subsidy by holding the 
contractor responsible for meeting CEC requirements for 
electricity generation during the first five years of 
operating the Cogeneration Facility, as stated in 
Attachment I. 

6. According to Ms. Park, the PUC requested that HMH 
Resources, a private consulting firm, conduct an economic 
and risk analysis of the proposed Cogeneration Facility, as 
part of HMH Resources' multi-year contract with the PUC. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

6 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



According to the cost-benefit analysis completed by HMH 
Resources in September of 1999, summarized in 
Attachment III, the proposed Design-Build Contract and 
Operation and Maintenance Contract with SDDA would 
generate a total net savings to the City of an estimated 
$16,740,528 over the first 20 years of operating the 
Cogeneration Facility (which could continue to operate 
beyond the first 20 years) due primarily to: (a) the reduced 
cost of electricity to Hetch Hetchy since the Cogeneration 
Facility would produce its own electricity, and (b) the 
California Energy Commission (CEC) subsidy. However, 
the Budget Analyst notes that the operation and 
maintenance costs included in the cost-benefit analysis 
total $4,630,160 over the first 20 years of operation, 
remaining constant every year at $231,508 and not 
accounting for the annual cost increases for inflation and 
related costs discussed in Comment No. 5 above and shown 
in Attachment II, provided by the PUC. Using instead the 
total estimate of $6,785,110 for operation and maintenance, 
which does account for increasing costs over 20 years, 
would reduce the total estimated savings to the City over 
20-years by $2,154,950 ($6,785,110 less $4,630,160) from 
$16,740,528 to $14,585,578. According to the PUC, 
additional benefits to the City of the proposed Cogeneration 
Plant would be the use of a renewable resource by the PUC 
that would otherwise be wasted and a reduction of odorous 
gases emitted from the Southeast Water Pollution Control 
Plant. The cost-benefit analysis prepared by HMH 
Resources and summarized in Attachment III assumes that 
the Cogeneration Facility would be completed and 
operating by January of 2001. However, the estimated 
opening date for the facility is now January of 2002. 

7. As stated previously, the PUC received two proposals in 
response to the RFP to design and build the proposed 
Cogeneration Faculty. According to Ms. Park, the two firms 
provided the following cost proposals in their applications: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

7 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Firm 


Design-Build 
Cost Proposal 


Biller-McCoy 
Builders, Inc. 


$6,628,612 


SDDA 


$3,094,803 







According to Ms. Park, SDDA's original bid of $3,094,804 
increased by $86,939 to the total of the subject Design- 
Build Contract of $3,181,743 because of additional requests 
made by the PUC during its contract negotiation with 
SDDA, including additional digester gas storage and an 
additional radiator. As previously stated, SDDA was 
considered to be the only responsive bidder. In addition to 
the cost of the SDDA proposal, the PUC considered in its 
selection the design submitted by SDDA and the experience 
of SDDA in building and operating such facilities, as stated 
in Attachment I. 

8. According to Ms. Park, and as stated in the subject 
resolution, the State California Energy Commission (CEC) 
has awarded to the PUC a subsidy of $0,139 per kilowatt- 
hour of electricity produced by the proposed Cogeneration 
Facility during its first five years of operation. According to 
Ms. Park, this subsidy will provide a total estimated $1.15 
million to the PUC during the first five years the 
Cogeneration Facility is operating (approximately $230,000 
annually)- According to Ms. Park, in order for the PUC to 
receive the full amount of the estimated $1.15 State CEC 
subsidy, the proposed Cogeneration Facility must be 
completed by December 31, 2001 and, once operating, must 
meet certain requirements for electricity generation. 

9. As stated previously, the proposed resolution would 
approve a contract between the City and Sierra Diesel 
Detroit Allison (SDDA) to design and build a Cogeneration 
Facility at the Southeast Water Pollution Control Plant. 
However the subject resolution does not specify the 
maximum contract amount of $3,181,743. Therefore, the 
subject resolution should be amended to include the exact 
contract amount of not to exceed $3,181,743. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

8 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



10. The proposed contract states that the PUC would be 
authorized to adjust the total contract amount of 
$3,181,743 downward during performance or upon 
completion of the design and construction work if SDDA 
failed to meet the performance and contract term 
requirements. The contract documents provide the 
following standards for assessing liquidated damages 
SDDA would be required to pay to the PUC: 

• $3,100 per calendar date for failure to meet substantial 
completion after 305 days. 

• $750 per calendar day for failure to meet final 
completion after 365 days. 

• $7,700 per kilowatt for electric output below 1954 
kilowatts. 

• $9000 per 10 British Thermal Units (BTU) per kilowatt 
hour for fuel consumption above the amount specified in 
the contract. 

• $5000 per 10,000 BTU for thermal output below amount 
specified in contract. 

Ms. Park advises that the liquidated damages above are 
designed to compensate the PUC for any CEC subsidy 
funds lost due to the Cogeneration Facility not being 
completed by the December 31, 2001 deadline, as stated in 
Attachment I. The City will make its first payment of 90 
percent of the total contract cost to SDDA after the City has 
verified that SDDA has reached substantial completion of 
the Cogeneration Facility and that the City has verified 
that the facility is operating according to the terms outlined 
in the contract. In the subject Design-Build Contract, 
"substantial completion" is denned as 30 days of continuous 
operation of the Cogeneration Facility, during which time 
the facility must meet the performance standards outlined 
in the contract. The City will pay the remaining 10 percent 
of contract costs to SDDA after the City has verified that 
the SDDA has reached final completion of the project. 

11. According to Mr. Carlos Jacobo of the PUC, the 
proposed $3,181,743 in contract funds axe included in 
Hetch Hetchy's Renewable Energy Generation Project 
Budget No. CUH943, which were appropriated in Hetch 
Hetchy's FY 2000-2001 budget. Mr. Jacobo reports that this 
project budget currently has a balance of $3,200,000. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

9 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

According to Ms. Park, the remaining $18,257 ($3,200,000 
less the contract amount of $3,181,743) will be used to fund 
PUC staff time in coordinating work with the developer on 
the premises of the Southeast Water Control Pollution 
Plant. 

12. According to the subject Design-Build Contract, SDDA 
is required to comply with Human Right Commission 
Subcontracting goals for the proposed Design-Build 
Contract, which are 20 percent combined MBE/WBE for the 
design services and 30 percent combined MBE/WBE for the 
construction services. 

Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed resolution to state the contract 
amount cannot exceed $3,181,743 between the PUC and 
SDDA, in accordance with Comment No. 9 above. 

2. Approval of the proposed resolution, as amended, is a 
policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

10 



lCT-12-2Wk3U 



18= jfcj 



SFPUC 



Attachment '. 
Page 1 of 4 




Water 

:tch Hetchv 
ter & power 
.ean water 



LK 1- BROWN, JR. 



MNIS NUhhaMDY 

IDENT 

jr &. MakraS 

PRESIDENT 

us L_ Cook 

MOLLER CAIN 
IK KUMAR BHATT 

I P. MUU-ANE, JR. 

HAL. MANAGER 



San Francisco Public utilities Commission 

1 15S Market St.. 4th Floor. San Francisco. Ca 94 103 • Tel. (4 1 5)554<3725 • Fax(4I5)5540796 



MEMORANDUM 

Harvey Rose, Board of Supervisors' Budget Analyst 
Laurie Park, Hetch Hetchy - Acting General Manager 
Southeast Cogeneration Project 
October 12, 2000 





TO: 
FROM: 
SUBJECT: 
DATE: 

BACKGROUND 



Through the sewage treatment process, the Southeast Water Pollution Control Plant 
(SEWPCP) produces an average of 1,100,000 standard cubic feet (scf) of digester gas 
per day. Digester gas consists mostly of methane and carbon dioxide. It is often used 
as a fuel to produce thermal and/or electric energy. Digester gas is considered a 
renewable resource. 

Currently, 40% of the digester gas produced by the SEWPCP is recycled to the boiler 
system to produce heat for the digesters and hot water supply for buildings. The 
excess 60% is flared to the atmosphere. 

This project would utilize the digester gas to fuel a two megawatt cogeneration plant. 
The plant will use approximately 78% of the digester gas to produce both heat and 
electricity. The remaining digester gas will continue to be used to heat the existing 
boilers, but will be supplemented by the thermal energy produced by the cogeneration 
plant. The electricity will be sold by HH to the SEWPCP for its use on-site. By 
eliminating operation of the waste gas flares, odors from the SEWPCP will be 
reduced. In addition, this Project will provide 2 MW of emergency generation 
capacity in event of an outage on the PG&E electric grid . 

BIDDING PROCESS 

The City obtained a subsidy from the California Energy Commission (CEC) towards 
the construction of this renewable project. The subsidy is payable on the first 5 years' 
output generated by the plant at a rate of $0.0139 per kilowatt-hour (kWhr). Based 
on total estimated generation of 82,605,000 kWhrs over this period, the value of the 
subsidy is approximately $1.1 million. In order to earn the full CEC subsidy to which 
this project is entitled, the cogeneration facility must be operational by January 1 , 
2002. 



B55>MEvtTw3viS^^ 

11 



UritftM&ii'Mllut. 



— 



'.-;-•.> ' • ir i ,J tnOTW 



T^^ 



OCT-12-2000 18:31 SFPUC 



Attachment I 
Page 2 of 4 



Members of the Southeast community indicated a desire to allow bidders of cutting edge 
technologies with superior environmental performance (such as fuel cells which produce 
virtually no emissions) to participate in the bidding process. The bids were expected to range 
from $5 million for conventional technologies with a 15-20 year life to as high as S50 million for 
a prototype 2 megawatt fuel cell with a 2-3 year life that one fuel cell developer was promoting. 

SFPUC staff decided to approach the bid process on the basis of bid price per kilowatt hour 
generated by the proposed Project. By this means, there would be a reasonable basis for 
comparing proposals from developers of projects employing vastly different technologies with 
very different operating characteristics, costs and efficiencies. A two step bidding process was 
employed: a "Request for Qualifications" ("RFQ") was first issued, followed by a "Request for 
Proposals" ("RFP") from bidders deemed qualified. 

The original project structure contemplated allowing a contractor to construct a Project which 
beneficially employed the digester gas from the SEWPCP and sell the output to HH. A 
condition of the RFQ was that the cost of the output of the proposed Project could not exceed the 
price that SEWPCP paid for electricity, approximately S0.075 per kilowatt hour (kWhr). A 
further condition was that the developer should be capable of assuming responsibility for the 
complete design, construction, operation and maintenance of its proposed Project. In this 
manner, bidders with prototype technologies such as the fuel cell developer had the opportunity 
to compete with developers employing conventional technologies. Costs in excess of the 
$0.075/kWhr would have to be sought from other sources, such as federal and state renewable 
resource development grants and subsidies and private investors. 

The RFP required that bidders indicate the price at which output would be sold to the SFPUC in 
cents per kilowatt hour in each of Years #1-12 of the proposed project's operation. In addition, 
the bidders were required to provide estimated installed costs, including major system 
components, all inlerties, design and construction of the building, interest during construction, 
transaction costs and contingencies. Further, the bidders were required to provide buyout prices 
for Years #5-12 in the event that the SFPUC elected a lease-purchase arrangement 

In December 1998, the SFPUC issued an RFQ. Although a number of firms attended the 
bidders' conference and expressed interest, only two firms submitted qualifications statements: 
Sierra Detroit Diesel Allison ("SDDA"), a subsidiary of Stewart & Stevenson with substantial 
experience in constructing and operating similar cogeneration plants throughout the U.S., and a 
joint venture of CH2M Hill and Energy 2000. Both of these firms were proposing conventional, 
well established technologies. Both were deemed qualified to submit proposals. 

In January 1999, the RFP was issued to the two qualified bidders. However, the joint venture of 
CH2M Hill and Energy 2000 decided not to submit a proposal. Instead, they passed the RFP on 
to Biller-McCoy Builders, Inc. who submitted a proposal on its own behalf. The proposal was 
for 3 x 750 kW (gross capacity 2.2 MW) gas turbines for an installed price of S6.6 million. The 
Biller-McCoy Builders proposal was rejected on the basis that they had not participated in the 
RFQ process and was therefore ineligible to bid. Therefore, SDDA was the sole responsive 
bidder. 



12 



-12-2000 18:31 SFPUC Attachment 



Fage 3 of 4 

In September 1999, the SFPUC authorized staff to negotiate a contract with SDDA. However, 
the SFPUC decided that it would be more cost effective purchase the Project outright, rather than 
purchase output from the Project. 

Staff negotiated two contracts with SDDA: a design-build contract in which the City would 
purchase the Project upon completion of construction, and an operations and maintenance 
agreement under which SDDA would provide services for up to five years, coincident with the 
term of the CEC subsidy, and SDDA would agree to guarantee performance of the Project 
sufficient to earn the full CEC subsidy during the period in which it operated and maintained the 
Project 

In September 2000, the SFPUC approved award of Contract CS-520 to SDDA to design and 
build a two-megawatt cogeneration facility at SEWPCP for a contract price of $3,181,742. The 
SFPUC decided that inasmuch as the operations and maintenance agreement was optional, the 
SFPUC would defer approval until policy issues had been fully vetted with respect to staffs 
proposed use of a contractor to operate and maintain a facility owned by the SFPUC. 

DESIGN-BUILD CONTRACT 

Ninety percent (90%) of the design-build contract price is payable after the Facility has been in 
operation for 30 days, and ten percent (10%) is payable upon completion of all punch list items. 
The contract provides for liquidated damages in case the contractor fails to meet any of the 
minimum performance specifications. In addition, failure to complete the project by January 1, 
2002 will trigger liquidated damages at the rate of $3,100 per calendar day for failure to meet 
"substantial completion" and $750 per calendar day for failure to meet "final completion". The 
value of the negotiated liquidated damages is equivalent to the value of the output "lost" during 
the period of non-performance; i.e., at approximately $0.075/kWhr. 

Funding is available in Project CUH943 in the amount of $3.2 million. The amount greater than 
the purchase price (approximately $28,000) is sufficient to cover SFPUC staff time to coordinate 
work, with the developer on SEWPCP's premises. Inasmuch as this is a design-build contract, 
minimal project oversight will be necessary. 

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE CONTRACT 

In negotiating the operations and maintenance contract SFPUC staff determined that City costs 
to do the same work would be roughly equivalent to the price quoted by SDDA. The principal 
benefit in allowing SDDA to do the work for the first 5 years would be its guarantee of the full 
CEC subsidy. In addition, SDDA included training of SFPUC staff in both operations and 
maintenance in its scope of work. 

Staff did not conduct a separate bidding process for an operations and maintenance contractor for 
this Project since it is unlikely that another contractor would be willing guarantee the 
performance of a plant designed and constructed by someone else. 



13 



OCT- 12-2000 18:32 SFPUC 

attachment 



Page A ot A 



CEC SUBSIDY 



The CEC subsidy is earned on the quantity of output generated during the first 5 years of trie 
Project's operation. However, the last date for collection of the CEC subidy is December 3 1 , 
2006. In the event that the Project is not placed in-service by January 1, 2002, the Project will 
lose the CEC subsidy at a rate of approximately 5230,000 per year ($630 per day). 

As noted under the description of the design-build contract, the negotiated liquidated damages 
make the City "whole" for the full value of any CEC subsidy lost. 

PROJECT ECONOMICS 

The SEWPCP is presently charged an average rate of approximately S0.075 per kWhr. The 
value of the annual electric output of this plant at the $0 075/kWhr rate is $1 .2 million. 

Annual operating costs are estimated at $265,000. Fuel is typically the most significant 
component of cost for a cogeneration plant. However, since digester gas is produced as a 
byproduct of the sewage digestion process, the cost of fuel for this project is $0. 

The proposed project therefore yields a positive economic benefit of $935,000 per year before 
consideration of the CEC subsidy. After accounting for the CEC subsidy (approximately 
$230,000 per year for the first 5 years), the payback on this project is less than 3 years.. [$3.2M ■ 
($935K+$230K) = 2.75 years] 

REQUEST FOR APPROVAL 

SFPUC requests approval from the Board of Supervisors for the award of the Design Build 
Agreement to SDDA in the amount of 53.181,742. 

Please contact David Henzl (415-554-3435) if there are any further questions. 



Cc: 

BOS Budget Analyst - Emilic Neumann 

CWP - Jon Loiacono 

CWP - Joe Wong 

HHWP - David HenzJ 

SFPUC Finance - Carlos Jacobo 

Records 



TOTAL P. 05 

14 



Attachment II 
fage 1 ot 3 






— o z*r-,-: : : 



C3 5-^ ■-'">*- ^ i. 









— o> 

en t- 

o o 

m cS 

CJ <D 

O I- 

to" 



I 

8| 


o o 


" •'■ -V/'-V--^"- -"".XT* 


c o 




■2 *z 

CD O O 

£ "D m ■ 


— L-^'V'-- 




CD ■ 3 S 

■ ■t e 
£ S > 5 

o ^ ■£. o 


•.:5-'c::.:'/-''- • ■ 


2 < 

in a: 


m ad C — 

o" OS 5 


$ *«5iT* ' -V' '."■ ' - 


O CL 


£ £ 


...£">_.. 7^ ..'•■'"'. 


o o 




• ' :??•"" v :-r .-" ••" - ."• : 






15 






20 SStfd 



i-CGW 3ng r-v-ia 



fCBK-OCC-rrt 



Attachment II 
Fage 2 ot 3 



3 


o o 


a 


o 


r» 

CV 
C-J 


CV 

-~ 


n 


cn o 


a 


o 


o 


CO 


cj 


n 

CV 


M 


cn 








— o 




o 

CM 


CV) 


CM 




o 


o 




rj 


n 










aa in 


cr- 


a 


<-) o 


n 


N 


TT — 


T 




■v in 


<• 




a> cm 


O) 




cv n 


n 


a 


cv o 


N 


o 


CO 


ID 


w 


■ 


oo 




in" 


If) 




CO 


CJ 




CV 


cj 


g 


co o 
o 


s 


rj 


10 


If) 




f-" 


pfc 




k 


r*~ 




<N 


CV 


■ 

o 


CV O 


N 


o 


m 


If] 


N 


T 


-? 




cn 


CO 




ID 


O 




CV 


N 


s 


T O 

o 


— 
O 


CN 


© 


to 










CD 


10 




CV 


:. 




<-"-.'.-- 












.! 


CV 




« 




CI 




£ 




2 




<XJ 




O 


i 


09* 




3- 








E 




S 















• — — - —.---. ■ - • . 






2 

in 
o 


<o. *ri -^.jS." > : " '-' "■~: ■ " .- .'- ■■"- 


2 


_o — '. = ; : ."3HL .--.-- ~ 


. o 


■CS— ->>.••- "i- "'^:'~ ' "!- » - '.. ". .- 




•v r^..--^-_'.^ J ,j--c:.:_^^...-_ - -. : c 


o 


— •-■;"--v: •'•::~::~.^ O 


■ 


~ ---£-." '~c::^-* "." ~ ' - *-. -,-' " .-""• - -*-l 




-T-/ ^'.--V-i-c-v -•".".' "" :-. tn ; 




-•^".f-- V-^-. ■-4_". ... _ . .- . •- '- - CO 




«'v:^f" •§••" 




° -'-r; '■':-, ^'-V ,^-E 




— • • i'Jff5.'r'>i., - j*. •_' .-,- '■_ _ . 1 ■ r .O.' 




-^~'Jx^^ -_-.,- ^ --'."•-- ' "-•*_- 













< ^ 



l_l 


< 


p 


r 


3 
C 


1- 

z 


(.n 




y- 
< 


< 

2 


z 


a 


o 


z 




< 


— 




< 


a 


E 


z: 


Ul 


P 


r 


< 


UJ 


E 





HI 


o 


a 


o o 



1 = 8 



t -a i <n 

31 2 3 S 
c c^ e 

TO « 

III! 



S -"--^i£T- 



S " 5 a "_«-. 



;c3 



.a, 



m 00 to _ 









E9 3?^d 



16 



— ~JSt-.fi}SS 



u,—i^l»i "i-ia M_m 



cn-_occ-CT'. 



'Cn nnn" 



Attachment .II 

"3 or 



-"T^VaS:-? •VJtr-.iS- 



B. 

^ z 

if 

< 2 

II 

< o 

S5 

O n- 

o o 




< 

2 
UJ 

Q 

.U. 

.o 

u 



t"3 39^d 



17 



KT'3W 3na w^r 



PRBfr-PCC-CTi. n.':co nnn- 



*>■& 



.-<n-' 

s 



O'O 



ui o o o 






jflSSL": 



OO •to ui 





n 


CNi 


.' 


■s.s. 




10 


IS 


''_:'7i-' 


«- o' 




m" 


a 




n-cn 






CM 


.: " . -* 1 '- 


cm 






cm 












•: v-: ' 


T ••' 








O O 


»->»- 


o 


„ 


rs 




. lO T. 






TT 






-r 


to 




.■»-" .a» 




o 


C7, 




CO- CM 






CM 


'.' 


CM 






o 



O O o O' O n n 



:;;S 



Attachment "III 
Page 1 ot J 



o o 



V) O O CM 



eg 
x 

UJ 



-S 



ov • 


■-.. i*:- iS. CM . 


t- <D 


■ w 


.. »- 00 . 


m" o 


o 




CM 


■ T-„ 


CM 



° .° 3 8- 



<Q 



■>-■ 



o o & oo 



<D <D i-i- 



O O c> -<r o t~- r» 
- - e>-~> m r- 
; • ■ : . 10 -o o m m 



CM — ■ 



'■Si. tn- 



IB 

— 



i- IT 



2.- 



i- i- 

o z 

£| 

2 o 

oi co 

UJ Q. 

i- £ 

UJ v- 

Q UJ 
CL W 
UJ 






WWW 
■ CM 



a- 

m 
O 

as. 
o 
w 

< 

Q. 
O 




|p/w 0"S a 



ro U 

UJ O 



— > 



» "E: — 





u 






K 


A 


— 


■ 


■ 


Q. 






n 

z 


3 


s 





u 


CL 



o 
u 



•u 



a. 



IS 



H3 _ S10-H(J3J 



L'rw n'..- WhUi 



Attachment III 
Page 2 ot 3 



;':acf-'0) <a o o o 



:.g.. 



a 



■■o o co o o 



^ 



■O'.OCJ'sO o o o 



;g-£ 



CO -r- 

■7- o 



.3; 

8K CM 



.O.O.O.N o ■* o 



"O O '■■« -r- 

.-:~ •• 001 






«3 



03 o 1- o 



i* en 
;ro o 



\<Q r TO'.JB tt.O <N o 



o: o <d cm o o o 



. -~ .-^- ID 



■COfllN O CM O 





.': C 








s. 








• 3 


c- 






":£ 


E 




UJ LLI 


r.3 

:2» 


1 - 



ra 
« 
u 

c . 
a 
c 
2 




3P 

< 111 


5 


:3- 
< 




K en 

UJ Q_ 


CO fi 

1 1 

s .0 


"(5 
£ 


O 

Z 


£ & 


<: 


< 


. O 


"J UJ 
UJ v- 


p. 


Q 


. OT 


uj a 


■Q 


:% 


OT to 


CO 


Q uj 




CM 


a. 


Q. CO 






£ 


tu 






O 


OT 






O 




3 w i2 



£"5^ a 

2 Q OT <n 



— T3 



«)•=; — 






19 






Attachment Tr^-% 
Page 3ot 3 






- 



■ 



- 

.... 

■ 
- 



km 

-en 

N 

3 






- o 

3 






-8 



«- Q 

■ cn 



0\0*. jo .n o m o 






'V- 



O O D «r- 

... SI to 



. 



.3- 



>OtO'js m o tt 



a .O \a> ' 

' 'S 



5 O m 



< 

a. 

< UJ 

o o 

K to 






S :: S 









Q. tO 



o-< < 

a. .a q 

ai a Q 
to to to 

CN 



3'- 

< . • 
-CQ- - 

o 

H - 
Z 

O . 
to 

I: 

s 
a 
o 




±! n cj 

" a. w 

1 ^ — J3. 5 © ui u 

: -j; a w p 5 a « <« 



— • ex y 



_C ^ "O fD 



'im 



■ -■•- 



_ 






20 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Item 2 -File 00-1801 



Department: 
Item: 

Description: 



Mayor's Office of Housing (MOH) 

Ordinance amending Section 10.117-76 of the 
Administrative Code to clarify the nature of authorized 
loans and add additional sources of funds. 

In September of 1993 the Board of Supervisors approved a 
resolution creating the City's Mortgage Credit Certificate 
(MCC) Program, which is State authorized and is 
designed to assist first-time homebuyers in purchasing a 
single-family residence in San Francisco. The program 
issues certificates to low- and moderate-income first-time 
homebuyers to qualify them to claim an annual credit 
against Federal income taxes, based on a percentage of 
the annual mortgage interest payments on a single family 
residence or a duplex. 

According to Ms. Maggie Davis of MOH, the California 
Debt Limit Allocation Committee (CDLAC) is now 
requiring that the City match the Mortgage Certificate 
Credits by providing to eligible homebuyers a forgivable 
loan of $7,500 to assist with the down payment. 

In order for MOH to comply with the new CDLAC 
requirements to provide such forgivable loans, the City's 
Administrative Code must be amended. The 
Administrative Code, Section 10.117-76, establishes the 
Home Ownership Assistance Loan Fund, intended to 
expand home ownership opportunities for low- or 
moderate-income first-time homebuyers. The proposed 
ordinance would amend Section 10.117-76 in the three 
following ways to allow MOH to provide forgivable loans: 

(1) Include forgivable loans in the authorized uses of 
funds in the Home Ownership Assistance Loan Fund. 

(2) Section 10.117-76 authorizes MOH to administer the 
Home Ownership Assistance Fund. The proposed 
ordinance would specifically authorize MOH to 
"Establish guidelines and criteria for loans to be made 
from the Home Ownership Assistance Loan Fund, 
making periodic adjustments to the amount that may 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

21 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



be loaned in order to reflect market conditions in the 
residential real estate market." According to Mr. Joe 
LaTorre of MOH, this language reflects current 
practice and is intended to clarify in the 
Administrative Code the role of MOH in 
administering the Home Ownership Assistance Loan 
Fund. 

(3) Authorize MOH to deposit into the Home Ownership 
Assistance Loan Fund "payment to the City of monies 
remaining in any fund or account established 
pursuant to the issuance of single family mortgage 
revenue bonds" and which are not required for the 
payment or redemption of the bonds. 

Ms. Davis advises that for calendar year 2001, MOH 
plans to use the required forgivable loans of $7,500 as 
part of the Extra Credit Teacher Home Purchase 
Program, a new MCC program administered by the 
Mayor's Office of Housing (MOH) to assist low- and 
moderate-income public school teachers and principals to 
become first-time homebuyers. The Extra Credit Teacher 
Home Purchase Program would issue to home-owners up 
to $7,546,941 in Mortgage Credit Certificates awarded to 
MOH by the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee 
(CDLAC) in September of 2000. ' Ms. Davis advises that 
the City plans to offer to eligible teachers and principals a 
loan of $7,500, which would be forgiven after the teacher 
or principal has served the required five years in a low- 
performing City school. 

According to Ms. Davis, MOH plans to assist 
approximately 47 eligible teachers and principals through 
the Extra Credit Teacher Home Purchase Program, based 
on an average home loan amount of $200,000. Therefore, 
the City would issue a total of $352,500 in forgivable 
loans under the subject program (47 participants 
multiplied by the $7,500 forgivable loan). According to 



1 In June of 2000, the Board of Supervisors approved a resolution (File No. 00-1057) authorizing 
MOH to submit an application to the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee (CDLAC), the 
State agency whicb authorizes the amount of tax-exempt private -activity bonds and mortgage credit 
certificates which can be issued by local government agencies, for an additional allocation of 
Mortgage Credit Certificates in an amount not to exceed $10,000,000. Ms. Davis advises that 
CDLAC awarded to MOH a total of $7,546,941 in Mortgage Credit Certificates. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

22 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Mr. LaTorre, these forgivable loans of $7,500 each, or a 
total of $352,500, would be financed with proceeds 
generated by Single Family Mortgage Revenue Bonds and 
to be deposited in the City's Home Ownership Assistance 
Loan Fund, as explained in Attachment I to this report, 
provided by MOH. Attachment I shows that the City 
currently has approximately $1,925,000 available in 
funds resulting from the issuance of Single Family 
Mortgage Revenue Bonds. Mr. LaTorre advises that the 
remaining funds of $1,572,500 ($1,925,000 less the total 
$352,500 to be used for subject forgivable loans) will be 
used by MOH to assist other first-time homebuyers 
through programs already administered by MOH, as 
stated in Attachment I. 

Ms. Davis advises that in order to qualify for the 
Mortgage Credit Certificate and the forgivable loan of 
$7,500, teachers and principals must commit to working 
in a low-performing City public school for five years. 
According to Ms. Davis, MOH will require those 
participating teachers and principals who fail to complete 
their five-year commitment to reimburse the City for the 
$7,500 loan. Ms. Davis advises that MOH will not charge 
interest to those teachers and principals required to repay 
the $7,500 loan to the City. Instead, as stated in 
Attachment II provided by MOH, MOH will require home- 
buyers to pay back the $7,500 loan plus 2 percent of the 
net increase in appreciated value of the home from the 
time the home was first purchased by the homebuyer. 
This payoff amount would be due: (1) when the property is 
sold, transferred or rented, or (2) after 40 years, as 
explained in Attachment II. According to Ms. Davis, MOH 
offers similar loan repayment plans in other MOH home- 
ownership loan programs, such as the Downpayment 
Assistance Loan Program. 

Of the 101 Kindergarten through 12 th grade public schools 
in the City, 27 schools are designated as low performing, 
according to Ms. Davis. Ms. Davis advises that 
participating teachers and principals will be required to 
purchase their homes in San Francisco. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

23 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Comments: 1. As stated previously, the proposed ordinance would 

amend the Administrative Code, Section 10.117-76, to 
include forgivable loans as an authorized use of funds in 
the Home Ownership Assistance Loan Fund. While MOH 
introduced the subject ordinance to receive authorization 
to provide $7,500 forgivable loans specifically to teachers 
and principals under the Extra Credit Teacher Home 
Purchase Program, the Budget Analyst notes that 
authorizing forgivable loans from the Home Ownership 
Assistance Loan Fund provides MOH with the authority 
to offer forgivable loans in the future, for any programs 
that fall under the designated uses of the Home 
Ownership Assistance Loan Fund. The Administrative 
Code, Section 10.117-76, states that the Home Ownership 
Assistance Loan Fund exists "...for the purpose of 
expanding home ownership opportunities for first-time 
home buyers who are persons, families or households of 
low or moderate income" and authorizes MOH to provide 
loans (not currently defined as forgivable) to individuals 
and non-profit organizations to secure housing. According 
to Ms. Sexton of the City Attorney's Office, if the proposed 
ordinance is passed, MOH will not be required to return 
to the Board of Supervisors for approval to grant future 
forgivable loans from the Home Ownership Assistance 
Loan Fund. However, MOH will be required to obtain 
Board of Supervisors approval to apply to the State for 
additional Mortgage Credit Certificates. As stated 
previously, for calendar year 2001, the State required that 
the City match its MCC allocation from the State with 
forgivable loans to participating home-buyers. 

2. Ms. Davis reports that the subject Extra Credit 
Teacher Home Purchase Program will allow eligible home 
purchasers to take an annual tax credit against Federal 
income taxes of up to 20 percent of their mortgage 
interest. Under the MCC program, this percentage rate is 
established by the entity administering the program 
locally (in this case, the Mayor's Office of Housing), but 
may not exceed 50 percent of the mortgage interest. As 
stated previously, this assistance will be targeted for 
teachers and principals committed to working in low- 
performing San Francisco public schools for a minimum of 
5 years. A teacher or principal who is awarded an MCC 
would still be able to deduct, for Federal income tax 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

24 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



purposes, the remaining amount of the annual mortgage 
interest payments not claimed as a credit against the 
taxes in the usual manner. By reducing the Federal 
income tax burden, the home buyer is left with increased 
disposable income with which to cover mortgage 
payments. 

3. As stated in Comment No. 3, MOH has established that 
the percentage at which participants in the subject MCC 
program will be able to take an annual tax credit against 
Federal Income Taxes will be 20 percent of their mortgage 
interest. However, Mr. LaTorre advises that when the 
State authorizes the City to allocate a certain amount of 
Mortgage Credit Certificates, in this case a total of 
$7,546,941, the State bases this amount on the 
assumption that the City will offer to participants a 25 
percent credit against their Federal Income Taxes. By 
decreasing the tax credit amount to 20 percent of 
mortgage interest, the City is able to offer tax credits to 
either more households or households with higher 
mortgages. When the City reduces the tax credit available 
to participants, the State then adjusts upward the 
amount of the Mortgage Credit Certificates the City is 
allocated so that the Federal tax credits the City 
ultimately provides to households equals the total tax 
credits the City was originally authorized by the State. 
According to Mr. LaTorre, based on the State formula, the 
City would receive authority to issue Mortgage Credit 
Certificates, totaling $9,433,676, or $1,886,735 more than 
the subject $7,546,941 MCC allocation amount. 

4. According to Ms. Davis, the Federal Internal Revenue 
Code, Section 143, sets limits on the income and home 
purchase price for first-time homebuyers to qualify to 
receive a Mortgage Credit Certificate. Ms. Davis advises 
that the income limits are set at 100 percent of the 
median income for the San Francisco Metropolitan 
statistical area, adjusted for household size. Therefore, for 
teachers or principals to be eligible for the Extra Credit 
Teacher Home Purchase Program, they must: (a) have a 
combined family annual income of $52,450 or less for a 
single person, an income of $59,900 or less for a two- 
person household, an income of $67,400 or less for a 
three-person household, or an income of $74,900 or less 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

25 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



for a four-person household; and, (b) a home purchase 
limit of $430,000 for existing homes and $388,000 for new 
homes. The purchase limit for existing homes is more 
than the limit set for new homes because the Internal 
Revenue Code bases the purchase price limit on the 
average sale price for new and existing homes in the San 
Francisco region. 

5. As stated previously, MOH plans to fund the proposed 
$7,500 forgivable loans (or total of $352,500 for 47 loans) 
by using a portion of $1,925,000 in proceeds generated by 
Single Family Mortgage Revenue Bonds, held in the 
City's Home Ownership Assistance Loan Fund, as 
explained in Attachment I. According to Ms. Michelle 
Sexton of the City Attorney's Office, State law requires 
that unexpended proceeds from single-family mortgage 
revenue bonds must first be used to retire any 
outstanding bonds. Once all such bonds are fully 
redeemed, remaining monies can then be used to support 
single-family mortgages for low and moderate-income 
households. In accordance with State policy, the 
remaining proceeds are being used to further the 
purposes of the original bond program. Ms. Sexton 
advises that the unexpended bond proceeds to be used by 
MOH for the forgivable loans are from bond programs 
that have been retired. 

6. According to Ms. Davis, the City's 1998 MCC Program 
assisted 146 low- to moderate-income households with a 
median household income of $46,716 and a median home 
purchase price of $190,000, from January 1, 1998 through 
December 31, 1998. The City's 1999 MCC Program 
assisted a total of 178 households with a median 
household income of $49,496 and a median home 
purchase price of $220,553, from January 1999 through 
June 2000. As shown in Attachment III, provided by 
MOH, as of November 1, 2000 the City's 2000 MCC 
program has assisted 31 low-income households with a 
median income of $51,900 and a median home-purchase 
price of $277,699. 

7. As stated in Attachment I, the San Francisco Unified 
School District will assist MOH in administering the 
Extra Credit Teacher Home Purchase Program by 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

26 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

marketing the program and certifying the ehgibility of 
teachers and principals. In October of 2000, the Board of 
Supervisors approved a resolution (File No. 00-1815) 
approving a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 
between the City and the San Francisco Unified School 
District to work together in implementing the Extra 
Credit Teacher Home Purchase Program. 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed ordinance is a policy matter for 

the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

27 




November 7, 2000 



Page 1 ot T 
MAYOR'S OFFICE OF HOUSING 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



WILLIE LEWIS BROWN, JR. 
MAYOR 
MEMORANDUM 

MARCIA ROSEN 
DIRECTOR 



To: Emilie Neumann. Budget Analyst 

From: Joe LaTorre J^^> 

Subject: File 00-18C« - Amendments to Home Ownership Assistance Loan Fund 

You have requested that MOH address die following questions in connection with the above 
referenced matter to be considered by the Finance and Labor Committee on November 15, 2000. 

1. Please reference the exact provisions that allow excess funds from revenue bonds to be 
transferred to the City and any restrictions on the use of those funds. 

The provisions are contained in the Indenture for each individual bond issue (which was 
approved as part of the resolution authorizing issuance of the bonds). The language in the 1982 
Indenture, for example, reads: "Sec. 10.01 ... the Trustee shall pay over, transfer, assign or 
deliver to the City all moneys or securities or other property held by tme pursuant to this 
Indenture which are not required for the payment or redemption of Bonds not theretofore 
surrendered for such payment or redemption. ..." 

The Indenture contains no restrictions on the City's use of the funds. Resolution 547-82, 
authorizing issuance of the bonds, makes no provision for how the funds are to be applied. 
However, it also approved a separate Home Mortgage Assistance Trust Agreement, funded by 
developer contributions, to provide additional assistance to first time homebuyers, and directed 
that "Any moneys distributed to the City under Section 3.03(D) of said trust agreement are 
hereby dedicated for use in connecdon with the City's community development block grant 
program, or any successor thereto, for purposes of low and moderate income housing." Pursuant 
to that provisions, MOH has been depositing such distributions into the Home Ownership 
Assistance Loan Fund 

2. What amounts of funds to you expect to receive and from which bond issues? 

I have identified the following approximate amounts coming from the bond issues which were 
defeased within the last year. I met with the trustee on Thursday, Nov. 2, and have obtained the 
following estimates. Because there are various expenses to be paid and some federal rebate 
liability, these amounts are not final: 

1982 Single Family Bonds S870.000 

1985 Single Family Bonds S735.000 

1990 Single Family Bonds S320.000 

SI, 925,000 



25 VAN NESS AVENUE, SUITE 600 • SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102 • (413)252-3177 • FAX (415) 252-3140 

TDD (415) 252-3107 
28 



Page z of T~ 



Emilie Neumann, Budget Analyst Office 
November 7, 2000 
Pase 2 



The bonds were issued to support first time homebuyer programs generally, and not specific 
projects as such. The trustee is holding these funds in various accounts within the bond account, 
usually in the Revenue Fund or Capital Reserve Fund. Once deposited in the Homeownership 
Assistance Loan Fund, they will be used for the purpose of the fund, i.e. homeownership 
assistance loans for first time homebuyers. 

3. How much of these funds is currently available? Has the City received the funds yet? 

The funds are currency available, but remain in the trust accounts pending Board approval of 
transfer. 

4. Do you have sufficient funds to supply your target number of teachers and principals 
(approximately 47) with a $7,500 forgivable loan each? If not, please explain where 
you will get remaining funds. 

Downpayment assistance loans for 47 teachers would require $352,500 of the funds to be 
received from the bond defeasances. The remaining $1,572,500 (approximately) would be used 
to assist other first time homebuyers through our regular programs. 

5. Were these funds earmarked for any other uses before you decided to use them for the 
$7,500 loans? Does the City have the option to use the funds for something else (within 
the restrictions on their use)? 

These funds were not earmarked for any other use, since their repayment to the City was not 
assured. According to our financial advisor, state law requires that monies paid to the City be 
used for the general purpose for which the bonds were originally issued, i.e. assistance to low and 
moderate income first time homebuyers. 

6. Who will administer the program? What role with the School District play? What 
oversight will MOH have over the School District? 

The program will be jointly administered by MOH and the SFUSD. The draft MOU proposes 
that: 1. The SFUSD help to market the program, providing information and outreach to teachers 
and principals at the schools identified as low performing. 2. A person from SFUSD be 
assigned to certify eligibility of participants in the program and 3. SFUSD will monitor each 
loan recipient's compliance with the 5 year performance commitment term. The SFUSD is to 
provide at least an annual report that will identify all recipients of ECTHPP MCCs and the 
forgivable loans and what the current working status is in the school district and for what school- 
-some certification that they are sdll in compliance. 



29 




Attachment II 
Page 1 ot 2 

MAYOR'S OFFICE OF HOUSING 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



WILLIE LEWIS BROWN, JR. 
MAYOR 

MARCIA ROSEN 

To: Emilie Neumann, Budget Analyst Office DIRECTOR 

From: Maggie Davis, MOH ft\P 

Subject: Repayment of ECTHPP Loan 

Date: November 9, 2000 

The ECTHPP loan is made available to teachers and principals who commit to working 
in low performing San Francisco public schools for a minimum of five years. The $7,500 
is a deferred, silent second loan that is forgiven at the end of five years upon the teacher 
or principal meeting the five-year commitment. 

Exceptions for the five-year continuous employment requirement will be allowed per the 
CDLAC regulations in the following cases: 

a. The Program participant is employed at the same school as at the time of receipt 
of the Mortgage Credit Certificate, but that school is no longer considered a low 
performing school; 

b. The program participant transfers for another low performing school; 

c. The program participant's departure from the low performing school was 
involuntary, and was not the result of disciplinary anion, and she/he accepts a 
teaching or principal position ai another California K-12 public school within one 
year of her/his date of departure; 

d. Hardship cases: serious illness, death and divorce; 

e. Occurrences covered under the Family Medical Leave Act; or 

f. Any other exceptions the City identifies during the implementation of the 
program and seeks authorization for from CDLAC. 

For those participants that do not meet the five-year commitment and who do not qualify 
for an exception as listed above, the loan will not be forgiven. Instead the loan is 
deferred for forty (40) years from the date of the initial purchase or until the sale of the 
property, transfer of tide or rental of the property without prior approval of the City (in 
accordance with specified temporary rental guidelines). The payoff amount due from the 
borrower is (i) the principal amount of the loan plus (ii) the proportional share of the 
appreciation of the property. 

The proportional share shall be based on the ratio of the original ECTHPP loan amount to 
the purchase price of the property or the fair market value of the property ai the time of 
purchase, whichever is higher (both called hereafter the "purchase price"). At the time 
that the property is sold or rented, the City will determine the value of the property at that 
lime (hereafter the "sale price"). Except in the case of units whose sales price are 
restricted by deed restrictions or other mechanisms to preserve affordability ("BMR 
units"), the value of the property ai sale is the contracted sale price or the fair market 
value at the time of sale. 



15 VAN NESS AVENUE, SUITE 600 • SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 94102 • (415)252-3177 • FAX (415) -> 52.3 140 

TDD (415) 252-3107 



30 



Attachment II 
Page 2 of 2 



The amount of appreciation is determined by subtracting the purchase price or fair market 
value at the time of purchase from the sales price or fair market value at the time of sale 
or rental. The fair market value shall be the sales price or the appraised value of the 
property, whichever is higher. If the property has not increased in fair market value, the 
borrower shall be obligated to repay the principal amount of the loan only. 

There is not prepayment penalty. 

An Example : 

Original purchase price $350,000 

ECTHPP loan $ 7,500 

Percentage of Appreciation (2%) 

Future Sale 



Loan Principal due Gty 


$7,500 


Appreciation Share 




a. Sales Price or Fair Market Value $400,000 




b. Original Price ($350,000} 




Net Appreciation $ 50,000 




2 % of Net Appreciation 


-i-Sl.000 


TOTAL DUE CITY 


$8.500 



31 




MAYOR'S OFFICE OF HOUSING 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



WILLIE LEWIS BROWN, JR. 
MAYOR 
MORTGAGE CREDIT CERTIFICATE PROGRAM 

STATISTICAL PROFILE FROM July 1, 2000 - November 1, 2000 V1ARCIA ROSEN 

DIRECTOR 



Total number of household assisted: 



14 MCCs issued 

17 Commitments issued 



Total: 



Median Household Income: 



S 5 1 ,900.00 (69% of San Francisco SMS A median for household of -I 
persons; 87% of median for 2 persons household) 



Median Purchase Price: 



$277,699.00 



Median Mortgage Amount: 



5191,509.00 



Household Size breakdown: 



Ethnic breakdown: 



1 person 

2 persons 

3 persons 

4 or more persons 



(23%) 
(19%) 
(29%) 
(29%) 



White 

Asian/Pacific Islander 

Black 

Hispanic 

Other/decline to state 



6 households 

21 

3 
1 



(19%) 
(69%) 
( 0%) 
(10%) 
( 2%) 



District breakdown: 

1) Richmonu 1 

2) Cow Hollow, Marina, Pacific Heights 

3) Chinatown, Nob, Russian, Telegraph Hill, Waterfront 

4) Sunset 1 

5) Duboce Park, Fillmore, Haight, Panhandle & Western Addition 1 

6) SOMA. Tenderloin, Treasure Island 9 

7) Lake Merced & West of Twin Peaks 

8) Castro, Glen Park & Noe Valley 1 

9) Bt-mal Heights & Mission District 

10) Bayview, Hunters Point, Potrero & Visitation Valley 8 

11) Excelsior & OMI 10 



25 VAN NESS AVENUE, SUITE 600 



SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102 
TDD (415) 252-3107 



(415)252-3177 • FAX (415) 252-3140 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Item 3 - File 1925 

Department: 

Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 



Description: 



Department of Public Health (DPH) 

Ordinance appropriating $250,000 from the General Fund 
Reserve - Queer Youth Shelter to fund the Transitional 
Housing Program for Homeless Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, 
Transgender, Queer, and Questioning Young Adults, for 
the Department of Public Health for FY 2000-01. 

$250,000 

In FY 1999-2000, an unappropriated General Fund 
Reserve of $250,000 was approved by the Board of 
Supervisors in the FY 1999-2000 Annual Appropriation 
Ordinance for a Queer Youth Shelter. The purpose of this 
General Fund Reserve was to establish a Transitional 
Housing Program for Homeless Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, 
Transgender, Queer, and Questioning Young Adults, 
according to Ms. Monique Zmuda of DPH. The Controller 
carried forward the General Fund Reserve into FY 2000- 
01. 

According to the DPH, the Transitional Housing Program 
for Homeless Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, 
Queer, and Questioning Young Adults (the subject 
Program) would provide transitional housing, with 
lengths of stay ranging between three to six months, for 
15 young adults between the ages of 18 and 23 who are 
currently homeless or at risk of homelessness. The 
subject Program would also provide on-site and off-site 
counseling and referrals to a network of mental health, 
substance abuse, primary health care, education, and 
employment services. 

The Program would be initially located in a new leased 
facility at 2500 Market Street. The proposed lease at 
2500 Market Street is the subject of Item 4, File 00-1930, 
to be considered at this meeting of the Finance and Labor 
Committee. 

Attachment I is a memorandum provided by Ms. Margot 
Antonetty of DPH which describes specifically what the 
subject Program will consist of, where the transitional 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

33 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Revenues: 



housing will be located, and what Program participant fee 
revenues will be generated. 

In addition to the subject appropriation of the $250,000 
General Fund Reserve, additional revenues in the total 
amount of $424,798 would be available to fund the 
Program at a total estimated cost of $674,798, as shown 
in the table below. 



Source of Revenues Amount 

Unexpended General Fund Reserve included in $250,000 

the FY 1999-2000 Annual Appropriation 

Ordinance (subject of this request) 
General Fund revenues appropriated in DPH 420,298 

budget for FY 2000-01 
Program participant fee revenues 4.500 



TOTAL $674,798 



According to Ms. Antonetty, DPH funding in the amount 
of $420,298 was appropriated for the start-up and 
operations of the subject Program in the FY 2000-01 
budget. Ms. Antonetty states that fees will be generated 
from Program participants' ability to pay, in accordance 
with the criteria outlined in Attachment I. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

34 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Expenditures: 



A summary program budget is as follows: 



Expenditure Item 


Start-up 

Expenditures 

04/01/00-11/14/00 


Projected 

Expenditures 

11/15/00 - 06/30/01 


Total 
Expenditures 


Salaries and Benefits 
Operating Expenses 
Capital Expenditure 

Direct Costs: 




$20,808 

80,213 



101,021 




$228,750 
146,486 
180.047 
555,283 


$249,558 
226,699 
180.047 
656,304 


Indirect Costs 




7.619 




10.875 


18.494 


TOTAL: 




$108,640 




$566,158 


$674,798 



Comments: 



Attachment II, provided by DPH, is a detailed account of 
the expenditures in the amount of $108,640 already 
incurred against the previously appropriated funds of 
$420,298. Comment No. 2 discusses the incurring of costs 
for the three months between April and June of 2000, 
prior to Board of Supervisors appropriation approval. 

Attachment III, provided by DPH, is a detailed account of 
the expenditures yet to be incurred in the amount of 
$566,158. The amount of $566,158 will be funded from (a) 
the balance of previously appropriated funds ($420,298 
less $108,640 already expended, leaving a balance of 
$311,658), (t>) the subject appropriation of the General 
Fund Reserve in the amount of $250,000, and (c) $4,500 
in Program participant fee revenues. 

1. Funding in the total amount of $674,798 is for a DPH 
professional services contract for a 15-month period from 
April 1, 2000 to June 30, 2001 with the Ark of Refuge, 
Inc., a non-profit organization which provides social 
services, such as transitional housing and case 
management to homeless and underserved populations in 
San Francisco and the Bay Area. The Ark of Refuge was 
selected by DPH through a Request for Proposals (RFP) 
process held in March of 2000. According to a list of RFP 
recipients submitted to the Budget Analyst by DPH, DPH 
sent the RFP to 138 representatives of Bay Area non- 
profit organizations. The Ark of Refuge was the only 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

35 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



organization to submit a proposal. The Ark of Refuge 
submitted a comprehensive proposal and met all required 
qualifications, according to Ms. Antonetty. 

Under its contract with DPH, which has a 15 month term 
of April 1, 2000 to June 30, 2001, the Ark of Refuge is 
responsible for providing safe and secure transitional 
housing and services to help the clients stabilize their 
living circumstances, according to Ms. Antonetty. 
Services will include educational and vocational services, 
the teaching of independent living skills, as well as 
mental health and substance abuse services. DPH will 
evaluate the Ark of Refuge's performance throughout its 
contract period. If the performance is satisfactory, DPH 
would renew the contract for one year. 

2. Of the previously appropriated funds of $420,298, 
DPH has already spent $108,640 on start up costs. 
According to Mr. Mark Trotz of DPH, $27,249 in costs 
were accrued in the three month period between April 
and June of 2000, prior to Board of Supervisors 
appropriation approval, but no funds were actually paid 
until after the commencement of FY 2000-01. The costs 
incurred between April and June of 2000 comprised three 
months of rental payments for 2500 Market Street, at 
$9,083 per month, so that DPH was able to maintain the 
option of entering into a lease for that building. This 
lease is the subject of Item 4, File 00-1930, to be 
considered at this meeting of the Finance and Labor 
Committee. Mr. Trotz states that the decision was made 
to incur rental costs prior to FY 2000-01 in the knowledge 
that (a) the subject $250,000 General Fund Reserve had 
been previously established by the Board of Supervisors, 
(b) DPH had proposed that budgetary provision be made 
for the subject Program in FY 2000-01, and (c) DPH could 
cover the costs incurred from within existing DPH 
Housing Services funds if necessary. 

3. According to Ms. Antonetty, the subject Program at 
2500 Market Street should be ready to receive clients in 
December of 2000. According to Ms. Antonetty, an 
estimated 40 clients would participate in the subject 
Program between the opening of the Program facility at 
2500 Market Street and June 30, 2001. Ms. Antonetty 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

36 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

states in Attachment I that 40 clients "assumes a 
staggered move-in process, which is common practice 
when opening a new facility." Ms. Antonetty states that 
in FY 2001-02, the Program is expected to serve between 
60 and 100 clients, depending on clients' length of stay. 

Recommendation: The Budget Analyst would normally recommend approval 

of the proposed ordinance based on the previous policy 
decisions of the Board of Supervisors. However, because 
DPH incurred an obligation of $27,249 prior to Board of 
Supervisors appropriation approval, the Budget Analyst 
considers approval of the subject ordinance to be a policy 
matter for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

37 



City and County of San Francisco 
Department of Public Health 




Attachment I 

Housing Services 

101 Grove Street, Room 119 

San Francisco, California 94102-4505 

Phone: (415)554-2679 

Fax: (415)554-2658 



TO: 
FROM: 
DATE: 
RE: 



MEMORANDUM 

Budget Analyst 

Margot Antonetty, Policy and Program Manager 

November 8, 2000 



Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and Questioning (LGBTQQ) 
Young Adult Transitional Housing Program at 2500 Market Street 

The overall goal of the LGBTQQ Young Adult Transitional Housing Program is to create a safe, 
supportive, and culturally sensitive living environment for homeless LGBTQQ young adults in order 
to provide the basic stability in their lives. Receiving shelter, food and support, they can participate in 
constructive supportive services and activities that will enhance their self-sufficiency. 

The program will provide transitional housing and supportive services to lesbian, gay, bisexual, 
transgender, queer and questioning young adults 1 8-23 years old at 2500 Market Street. The program 
will serve 15 clients at any given time and the length of stay will be between 3 and 6 months. The 
services include counseling, case management and assessment on site, as well as referrals to 
substance abuse services, mental health services, vocational, educational and employment services, 
etc. off-site. Additionally, 10 hours per week of substance abuse and mental health services are 
subcontracted through New Leaf specifically for the clients of this program. 

In order to aid clients in developing financial responsibility, which includes saving for their transition 
from the program, as well as to defray program costs, a weekly fee of 25% of income or $50, 
whichever is less, will be required of all clients, once they have established employment and/or 
another source of income. Clients who require money management or payee services will be linked to 
appropriate agencies. One of these, Lutheran Social Services will also present in-services on-site to 
teach clients basic money management, fiscal planning, and budget concepts. Clients will be required 
to establish a savings account, which cannot be withdrawn upon until graduation from the program. 
In general, clients' service plans will be specifying to deposit 25% of their income or $50, whichever 
is less, in this account. 

The program will be serving approximately 40 unduplicated clients (UDC) during the first contract 
year. This number assumes a staggered move-in process, which is common practice when opening a 
new facility. In contract year 2001/02, the UDC will be between 60 and 100, depending on clients' 
length of stay. The first contract year will inform the UDC for the second contract year. 

The department has begun the process of seeking a permanent site for this program, since the lease 
for 2500 Market expires in two years. 



38 



Page 1 of 6 



1 A B C IP E ffl G IN 1 |H R 


1 

2 
3 
4 

5 
6 
7 
8 

9 
10 
11 
12 


Document Date 
Program Name LGBTQQ Young Adult Transitional Program 


8/8/00 


Salaries 81 Benefits Detail 

PREVIOUS PROPOSED 
TRANSACTION TRANSACTION 
TERM TERM 4/0 1/00- 11/14/00 INCREASE 
POSITION TITLE FTE SALARIES FTE SALARIES (DECREASE) 


13 1 Program Director 






1.00 1 $7,000 1 


14 


Counselors 






4.20 1 $4,846 




15 


House Managers 






5.20 1 $4,800 




16 






| 






17 






| | 




18 






| | 




19 






| | 


20 






| | 


21 1 




| | 


22 1 




| 




23 1 










24 1 








25 


| 








26 


| 






27 | 






28 










29 




| 


30 


TOTALS 


| 


10.40 1 $16,646 1 


31 1 


32 | 


33 


EMPLOYEE FRINGE BENEFITS I 1 1 25%| 4.16z| 


34 | I 1 


35 | II II 


36 ITOTAL SALARIES S BENEFITS | S20,808 | 


37 |DPH #2 



39 



Attachment 11 
Page 'I ot b 



The Ark of Refiige/2500 Market Street 



Budget Justification 

Start Up 

(April 1 - November 14, 2000) 



SALARIES AND BENEFITS 

Program Director $ 7,000 

2 months X S42, 000/ 'annum 

Responsible for all aspects of day-to-day operation of the Facility. Staff 
hiring, training and support. Program design, implementation and evaluation. 

Development of policies, procedures, forms and program printed collateral. 
Representation to Neighborhood Advisory Council, City agencies and officiab, 
and press. Ensures contract and code compliance. Conducts client counseling 
and case management services. 

Counselors S 4,846 

2 weeks X S30,000/annum X4.2 FTE 

Client support personnel. Crisis intervention, psychosocial support, referrals, 
group facilitation and activity management. 

House Managers S 4.S00 

2 weeks X S24, 000/ annum X 5. 2 FTE 

Manage safety, cleanliness and orderliness of Facility. Monitor and provide 
practical support to clients. Assist with client chore schedules and fulfillment 

of Facility requirements and compliance with rules. Provide administrative and 

reception support for other staff. Assist in supply inventories, purchasing 

storage, as well as food preparation, etc. 

TOTALS S 16,646 

Benefits S 4,162 

Standard package at 25% 



[TOTAL SALARIES AND BENEFITS S 20.808J 



40 



AtcaciimeriL n 
Page 3 of 6 



I c I d I 



Document Daie: 8/8/00 



Program Name LGBTQQ Young Adait Transitional Program 



Operating Expense Detail 



Expenditure Category; 



TERM 



Occupancy 

Rental of Property 

UtiIities(E!ec, Water, Gas, Phone, Scavenger) 

Building Maintenance Supplies and Repair 

Materials and Supplies 

Office Supplies/Postage 
Printing and Reproduction 
Program/Educational Supplies 

General Operating 

insurance 
Staff Training 

Equipment Rental/Maintenance 
Relief Trainings 



Staff Trave!-(Local K Out of Town) 



Consultant/Subcontractor Descriptive Title 



Project Consultant 



25 



Other 

Hob Advertisings 



39 



43 



TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSE 



PROPOSED 
TRANSACTION 

StartUp 
4/1/00- 11/14/00 

$68,123 

$750 



SO 



51,200 



S200 



J 200 



S500 



S 1,500 



SI, 740 



SO 



$4,500 



$1,500 



$80,213 



INCREASE 
(DECREASE) 



41 



Page 5 oT 6~ 



The Ark of Refuge/2500 Market Street 



OPERATING 

Rental of property at 2500 Market Street $ 68,123 

7. 5 months X $9, 083/month 

Utilities S 750 

2. 5 months X $200 for general and 2 month XS125 for phone 

Office Supplies S 1,200 

Two months X SlOO/month, 4 phones, pre-pwchase of 1/2 year's supplies 

Printing and Reproduction $ 200 

2 months X $50 printing/month and $50/month reproduction 

Program/Educational Supplies S 200 

Materials for staff training and client support services 

Insurance S 500 

Prorated standard insurance comprehensive agency coverage 

Staff Training 5 1,500 

Two weeks of training for all staff before program starts operations, 
16 hrs. of training through paid consultants at $75/hr. 

Relief Training S 1,740 

3 X20 hrsX$16/hr and 3 X20 hrsX$13/hr 

Project Consultant S 4,500 

100hrsX$45/hr 

Job Advertising S 1,500 

Chronicle/Examiner, Oakland Tribune, Opportunity NOCs , etc. 



TOTAL OPERATING S 80,213 



A2 



Page 5 of 6 



A B C D E F G |HI 


1 

2 
3 

4 

5 

6 
7 
8 
9 

10 
11 

12 

13 


Program Name LG3TQQ Young Adult Transitional P 


Document Date: 
"ogram 

c Cost Detail 

PREVIOUS PROPOSED 
TRANSACTION TRANSACTION 
TERM 4/01/00-11/14/00 
SALARIES FTE SALARIES 


S/8/00 

INCREASE 

(DECREASE) 


Indirec 

1 . Salaries and Benefits 

TERM 

Position Tide FTE 


14 


Executive Director 






0.05 


1,875 | 


IS 


Chief Finance Officer 






0.10 


2.500 | 


16 1 Deputy Director 






0.05 


1,720 




17 | 








1 


IB I 








1 


19 1 










20 | 








1 


21 


TOTAL FTE/SALARIES 


0.00 





0.20 


6,095 




22 


EMPLOYEE FRINGE BENEFITS 


% 




25% 


1,524 




23 
24 
25 

26 


TOTAL SALARIES s BENEFITS $7,619 


2. Operating Cost 

ExDenditure Cateeorv 






11 














28 










29 










30 










31 










32 










33 










34 
33 
36 
37 
38 

39 


TOTAL OPERATING COST 








TOTAL INDIRECT COST 




$7,619 




(Salaries S Benents -r Operating C 
DPH £ 5 


ost) 









43 



The Ark of Refuge/2500 Market Street 



INDIRECT 



Attachment II 
Page 6 of 6 



Executive Director 

. 05 FTE X $60, 000/annum 

Oversees all agency programs and staff, negotiates contracts, monitors and 

evaluates deliverables, attends relevant community and City meetings 



$ 1,875 



Deputy Director S 1,720 

. OS FTE X $55, 000/annum 

Responsible for all agency housing and case management services, along -with 
all other agency programs. Involved in all strategic planning, program development 

and evaluation, and organizational development. 

Chief Finance Officer S 2,500 

.1 FTE X $40, 000/annum 

Responsible for monthly invoicing/accounts receivable, accounts payable, 

payroll processing and budget development for all agency contracts. 

TOTAL $ 6,095 



Benefits 

Standard package at 25% 



S 1,524 



TOTAL INDIRECTS 



S 7.619J 



Note: 










The Budget Analyst notes that the total start-up expenditures 


for the 


subject Program between 


April 1 


, 2000 and November 14, 


200C 


are as 


follows: 










Salaries and benefits: 




520,808 






Operating expenses: 




80,213 






Indirect costs: 




7.619 






TOTAL: 




5108,640 







44 



Page 1 ot 



I a b j c in e in g iH 1 


K 


i 

2 

3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 

10 
11 
12 


Document Date 
'rogram Name LGBTQQ Young Adult Transitional Program 


8/8/00 

INCREASE 
(DECREASE) 


Salaries 8Z. Benefits Detail 

PREVIOUS PROPOSED 

TRANSACTION TRANSACTION 
TERM TERM 11/1 5/00 - 6/3/0 
POSITION TITLE FTE SALARIES FTE SALARIES 


13 


Program Director 


1.00 I 




$26,250 


J 


14 


Counselors 


4.20 






$78,750 




15 


House Managers I 5.20 | 




$78,000 




16 | 






17 




| | 






13 | 


| | 






19 | 


| 






20 I 












21 


| 








22 












23 


| 










24 


[ 


" 






25 


| 








26 


| 










27 


| 










28 










29 


| 










30 
31 
32 

33 
34 

35 

36 
37 


TOTALS 


10.40 




$183,000 




EMPLOYEE FRINGE BENEFITS 

_ TOTAL SALARIES EC BENEFITS 
DPH #2 


25% $45,750 










$228,750 








| 



45 



Attachment H I 
Page 2 of. B 



The Ark of Reruge/2500 Market Street 



Budget Justification 

Operating 

(November 15, 2000 - June 30, 2001) 



SALARIES AND BENEFITS 

Program Director S 26,250 

/. ~FTE X $42, 000/annum X 7. 5 months 

Responsible for all aspects of day-to-day operation of the Facility. Staff 

hiring, training and support. Program design, implementation and evaluation. 

Development of policies, procedures, forms and program printed collateral. 

Representation to Neighborhood Advisory Council, City agencies and officials, 

and press. Ensures contract and code compliance. Conducts client counseling 

and case management services. 

Counselors $ 78,750 

4. 2 FIE X30, 000/annum X 7. 5 months 

Client support personnel Crisis intervention, psychosocial support, referrals, 
group facilitation and activity management. 

House Managers S 78,000 

5. 2 FIE X 2~4, 000/annum X 7. 5 months 

Manage safety, cleanliness and orderliness of Facility. Monitor and provide 
practical support to clients. Assist with client chore schedules and fulfillment 
of Facility requirements and compliance with rules. Provide administrative and 
reception support for other staff. Assist in supply inventories, purchasing 
storage, as well as food preparation, etc. 

TOTAL $183,000 

Benefits S 45,813 

@ 25% standard agency package for full time employees 



frOT AL SALARIES AND BENEFITS S22S.750; 



46 



Page 3 ot 8 



I F 



Document Date: 



Program Name LGBTQQ Young Adult Transitional Program 



Operating Expense Detail 



PREVIOUS 
TRANSACTION 



12 1 Expenditure Category: 



TERM 



Occupancy 

Renal of Property 

Utilities (E!ec, Water, Gas, Phone, Scavenger) 

Building Maintenance SuppGes and Repair 

Materials and Supplies 

Office Supplies/Postage 
Printing and Reproduction 
Program/Educational Supplies 



Genera! Operating 
Insurance 
Staff Training 
Equipment Renal/Maintenance 

Staff Travel-(Local H Out of Town) 
Consultant/Subcontractor Descriptive Title 



32 



35 



36 



New Leaf Services - Substance abuse and mental health 



Counselors Relief Hours 



House Manager Relief Hours 



Other 



37 



33 



42 



Food 



Resident Activities and 5uppiies 




TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSE 



PROPOSED 
TRANSACTION 

11/15/00 - 6/30/01 



S63.123 



S9.000 



SS.250 



S750 



S750 



S600 



S2.000 



$18,000 



S8.319 



So. 760 



S23.184 



S3. 750 



$146,486 



8/8/CG 



INCREASE 

(DECREASE; 



47 



Attachment ii . 
Page k of 8 



The Ark of Refuee/2500 Market Street 



OPERATING 

Rental of property at 2500 Market 
7.5 months XS9,083/month 

Utilities 

7.5 months X SI, 200/month for PG&E, garbage, water, recycling 
phone, Internet access and basic cable service 

Building Maintenance Supplies and Repairs 

7. 5 months X S 700/month building repair contingency; purchase of janitorial, 
cleaning, laundry, and other basic supplies 

Office Supplies/Postage 

7.5 months X S50 office supplies/month and $5 0/month postage 

Printing and Reproduction 
7.5 months X S50 printing/month and %50/monlh reproduction 

Program/Educational Supplies 

Materials for staff training and client support services 

Insurance 

Prorating of standard agency insurance comprehensive coverage 

New Leaf Services 

7.5 months X 1 4 hoursAveek individual and group substance abuse/mental 
health counseling and 7 hours/week prep, evaluation, and technical assistance 

Relief Counselor hours 
5.2 FTEX12.5 days X 8 hours/day X SI 6/hr. 

Relief House Manager hours 
5.2 FTEX12.5 days X 8 hours/day X SI 3/hr. 

Food 

57 per client X 15 clients X 90% 

Residents Activities and Supplies 
7.5 months X 400/month for fast passes, personal hygiene supplies, etc. 



S 68,123 
S 9,000 

S 5,250 

$ 750 
S 750 
S 600 
S 2,000 
S 18,000 

S 8,319 
S 6,760 
S 23,184 
S 3,750 



[TOTAL OPERATING 



S146.4S6 



48 



-LdL eUL L. 

Page b of 8 



r r 



Document Dace: 



8/3/00 



Program Name LGBTQQ Young Adult Transitional Program 



Capital Expenditure Detail 
(Equipment and Remodeling Cost) 



EQUIPMENT: 



n No. 



ITEM/DESCRIPTION 



PURCHASE 
COST EACH 



TOTAL COST 



Food Prep/Dining Room Supplies 



56,500 



Bedding and Bach Supplies 



$8,000 



Computers 



57,500 



Phone InscalLacion 



51,200 



16 



Security System 



56,000 



17 



Office Equipment and General Fumicure 



52.500 



Recreational Supplies/Ecuioment 



52,000 



TOTAL EQUIPMENT COST 

REMODELING: 

Description: 



S33,700 



2S 



Asian Neighborhood Design Construction Costs 



90,700 



Overhead, Profit, General Conditions, Contingency 



34,147 



Professional Services 



21.500 



30 TOTAL REMODELING COST 



5146,347 



32 |TOTAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURE 



SI 80,047 



33 Ktquipmenr. and Remodeling Cost) 
. 34 |PPH£4 



49 



Attachment ■ L - J - 
Page b ot 8 



The Ark of Refuge/2500 Market Street 



CAPITAL RENOVATIONS AND START-UP PURCHASES 

Food Prep/Dining Area Equipment and Supplies 2 5 6,500 

Reach-in refrigerator, large refrigerator, oven, microwave, storage 
cabinets, dishware, silverware, serving/storage utensils/containers 

Bedding and Bath Supplies 3 S 8,000 

Washer and Dryer, blankets, sheets, pillows, towels, etc. 

Computers $ 7^00 

3 iMacsfor clients and 2 admin Mac workstations for staff 

Phone Installation 4 S 1 ,200 

4 lines (two for staff and two for clients) with a total of 20 voice mail boxes 

Security System 5 S 6,000 

Four cameras, four part video monitor, buzz in door system 

Office Equipment and General Furniture S 2,500 

Office desks, chairs, file cabinets, lights, client couches, tables, chairs etc. 

■Recreational Supplies/Equipment S 2,000 

Television, VCR, small stereo, games, books, etc. 

Facility Renovations S 90,700 

All major capital improvements as specified by Department of 
Public Health (DPH) and Asian Neighborhood Design (AND) 

Overhead, Profit, General Conditions, Contingency for construction _ S 34,147 

Professional Service S 21,500 

Architectural services 



pTOTAL CAPITAL AND START-UP PURCHASES S180.047J 



" Estimate provided by Sheffield's Food Service 

' Based on estimate Ark used for 1999 application for permanent young adult shelter to DHS 
* Based on Pac Bell business services 
Provided by Northwest Security Systems 

50 



Page 7 of 



Document Date: 



8/8/00 



Program Name LGBTQQ Young Adult Residential Program 



1 . Salaries and Benefits 



Position Tide 



Indirect Cost Detail 



PREVIOUS PROPOSED 

TRANSACTION TRANSACTION 

TERM TERM 11/15/00-6/30/0 INCREASE 

FTE - SALARIES 



FTE 



SALARIES 



(DECREASE) 



14 I Executive Director 



0.10 



$3,750 



1 5 [Chief Finance Officer 



0.15 



S3. 750 



16 



17 



19 



TOTAL FTE/SALARIES 



0.25 



$7,500 



EMPLOYEE FRINGE BENEFITS 



25% 



$1,875 



TOTAL SALARIES 51 BENEFITS 



$9,375 



2. Operating Cost 

Expenditure Category 



Audit 



$1,500 



i2 






33 




34 






33 
36 


TOTAL OPERATING COST 


$1,500 






37 
33 


TOTAL INDIRECT COST 


510,875 


(Salaries S Benefits ~ Operating Cost) 




39 


DPH U 5 





51 



The Ark of Refuec/2500 Market Street 



INDIRECT 



Attachment II I 
Page B or 8 



Salaries and Benefits 

Executive Director 

. 1 FTE X S6C, 000/armum X 7.5 months 

Oversees all agency programs and staff, negotiates contracts, monitors and 
evaluates deliverables, attends relevant community and City meetings 

Chief Finance Officer 
.15FTEXS4,000/annum 

Responsible for monthly invoicing/accounts receivable, accounts payable, 
payroll processing and budget development for this and all other agency 

contracts. 



S 3,750 



S 3,750 



TOTAL 

Benefits 
@25% standard agency package 

TOTAL SALARIES AND BENEFITS 



S 7,500 
S 1,875 

S 9,375 



Operating Cost 



Audit 
Prorating of agency audit service 

TOTAL OPERATING COST 



S 1,500 



S 1,500 



[TOTAL INDIRECT COST 



S 10.875] 



Note: 



The Budget Analyst notes that the total projected expenditures for the 
subject Program between November 15, 2000 and June 30, 2001 are as 
follows: 



Salaries and benefits: 
Operating expense.: 
Capital expenditure: 
Indirect costs: 

TOTAL: 



5228,750 

146,486 

180,047 

10.875 

S566.158 



Combining total start-up expenditures in the amount of 5108,640 
incurred between April 1, 2000 and November 14, 2000 (see 
Attachment HT) with total project expenditures in the amount of 
5566,158, results in total expenditures of 5674,798. 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Item 4 - File 00-1930 



Department: 



Item: 



Department of Public Health (DPH) 
Real Estate Division, Department 
Sendees (RED) 



of Administrative 



Resolution authorizing a new lease of real property at 
2500 Market Street on behalf of the Department of Public 
Health. 



Location: 



Purpose of Lease: 



Lessor: 



Lessee: 



No. of Sq. Ft. and 
Monthly Rental 
Revenues Payable by 
DPH to the Trust: 



2500 Market Street, San Francisco 

The subject property would house a Transitional Housing 
Program for Homeless Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, 
Transgender, Queer, and Questioning Young Adult. 
Funding for this Program, which would be operated by 
the Ark of Refuge, Inc., a community-based nonprofit 
social services agency, under contract to DPH, is the 
subject of Item 3, File 00-1925, to be considered at this 
meeting of the Finance and Labor Committee. 

Tobin Hansen, Trustee of the Tobin Hansen 2000 
Revocable Trust (the Trust) 

Department of Public Health 



Approximately 4,000 square feet at a monthly rent of 
$9,083 (approximately $2.27 per square foot per month) 
for the first 12 months of the subject lease (December 1, 
2000 to November 30, 2001). This would increase to a 
monthly rent of $9,108.75 (approximately $2.28 per 
square foot per month) for the second 12 months of the 
subject lease (December 1, 2001 to November 30, 2002). 
The monthly rent increase of $25.75 from $9,083 to 
$9,108.75 represents an approximately 0.28 percent 
increase. 



Annual Rental 
Revenues Payable by 
DPH to the Trust: 



$108,996 for the first 12 months of the subject lease 
(December 1, 2000 to November 30, 2001). $109,305 for 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

53 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Source of Funds: 



Term of Lease: 



Right of Renewal: 



Utilities and 
Janitorial Services: 



the second 12 months of the subject lease (December 1, 
2001 to November 30, 2002). 

The following revenues, in the total amount of $674,798, 
would fund the Transitional Housing Program for the 15- 
month period from April 1, 2000 to June 30, 2001, 
including the subject two year lease from December 1, 
2000 to November 30, 2002: 



Source of Revenues Amount 

Unexpended General Fund Reserve included $250,000 

in the FY 1999-2000 Annual Appropriation 

Ordinance 
General Fund revenues appropriated in DPH 420,298 

budget for FY 2000-01 
Program participant fee revenues 4.500 



TOTAL $674,798 



Two years (December 1, 2000 to November 30, 2002). 

As stated in the lease document, for up to 180 days after 
the lease expiration date or termination date, the City has 
the first right of refusal to lease the subject property for a 
non-specified period of time and at a rental rate to be 
determined, subject to Board of Supervisors approval. 



The City would be responsible for the cost of all utilities 
and janitorial services. 



Tenant Improvements: The subject resolution would authorize DPH to complete 
necessary tenant improvements. As outlined in Item 3, 
File 00-1925, DPH anticipates expending $180,047, to be 
funded from the revenues fisted above, to (a) make tenant 
improvements and renovations to convert the building at 
2500 Market Street, which was most recently a 
gymnasium, into a facility appropriate for a transitional 
housing program, and (b) purchase the necessary 
furniture and equipment for staff and clients. All 
permanently installed tenant improvements would 
become part of the Lessor's property. The City is also 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

54 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



responsible, through the Ark of Refuge, for all reasonable 
interior maintenance and repair costs. 



Comments: 



1. The Transitional Housing Program is a new program, 
previously authorized by the Board of Supervisors, which 
is being funded in the total amount of $674,798 for the 15- 
month period of April 1, 2000 to June 30, 2001, as 
discussed in Item 3, File 00-1925. The amount of 
$674,798 will fund the DPH contract with the Ark of 
Refuge, Inc., a non-profit organization which provides 
social services to homeless and underserved populations 
in San Francisco and the Bay Area, to provide 
transitional housing program services at the 2500 Market 
Street location. 

2. The Planning Commission granted a conditional use 
permit for the property (a former gymnasium), and a 
variance for open space and parking, on September 28, 
2000. 



3. Mr. Steve Legnitto of RED states that the rental rate 
contained in the subject lease represents fair market 
value. 



Recommendation: 



Approve the subject lease. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

55 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Items 5 and 6 - Files 00-1698 and 00-1834 



Department: 
Items: 



Location: 



Purpose of Lease: 



Lessor: 



Public Utilities Commission (PUC) 

Resolution adopting findings pursuant to the 
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and 
authorizing the Public Utilities Commission to enter 
into a new 40-year lease with Mission Valley Rock 
Company for mining 242 acres of land under the 
jurisdiction of the PUC known as Parcel 65 located in 
Alameda County, California (File 00-1698) 

Hearing to consider alternative proposals for 242 acres 
of City-owned Public Utilities Commission land out of 
a total of 10,505 acres on Parcel 65 located in Alameda 
County Lands, Sunol, and to compare other proposals 
with the proposed new 40-year lease with Mission 
Valley Rock Company, with respect to the following: 
total revenue generated; ecological impact on the local 
ecosystem; community support and input; water 
storage; impact on restoration of Water Temple; and 
other issues (File 00-1834). 

242 acres out of the total of 10,505 acres of Parcel 65, 
Sunol in Alameda County (See Attachment I) 

Primarily for operation and maintenance of quarry, 
with incidental vineyard, orchard and nonexclusive 
use of adjacent area for the placement of a conveyor 
belt to transport mined material to the 1-680 access 
road. 

San Francisco Public Utilities Commission 



Lessee: Mission Valley Rock Company 

Number of Acres: 242 acres 

Annual Revenues 

Payable by Mission 

Valley Rock Company 

To The PUC: Base revenue of $100,000 per year, for the first 20 

years ($2,000,000), plus 10.5 percent of the average 
sales price per ton charged by the Mission Valley Rock 
Company to their customers for sand and gravel, 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

56 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

including overburden 1 witb adjustments to this 
percentage rate every five years. After the first 20 
years, the City would continue to receive the adjusted 
10.5 percent revenues from Mission Valley Rock 
Company (See Comment No. 3 for estimated total 
revenues). 

Security Deposit Required 
of Mission Valley 
Rock Company: $2,000,000 bond in case of default or damages 



Term of Lease: 



Approximately 40 Years, from the date of final 
approval by the Board of Supervisors and the Mayor 
through October 31, 2040, or earlier if completion of 
the quarry pits to be excavated. 



One-Time Payment To The 
PUC By Mission Valley Rock 
Company if The Company 
Assigns or Sublets 

This Lease: $2,000,000 adjusted by CPI, to be paid by Mission 

Valley Rock Company to the PUC 

Right of Renewal: None 



Other Significant 
Provisions: 



Description: 



City will retain all timber, mineral (except sand, 
gravel and rock) groundwater and surface water rights 
to the subject property, and the right to grant future 
rights and easements and to operate and repair PUC 
facilities, provided that such rights do not interfere 
with the Mission Valley Rock Company's use of the 
subject property. 

Mission Valley Rock Company will be responsible for 
backfilling and landscaping the area within one- 
quarter mile radius surrounding the Sunol Water 
Temple (See Comment No. 2 for additional details). 

Currently, the PUC owns approximately 242 acres of 
unimproved, agricultural land in the Town of Sunol in 



1 Overburden is the additional clay and soil material that is required to be excavated from 
the quarry site that is not useable for construction material and would be sold at significantly 
lower prices as topsoil or other related purposes. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

57 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Alameda County, adjacent and south of Interstate 680. 
The PUC currently leases 69 acres, or approximately 
28.5 percent, of the total 242-acre parcel to the Mission 
Valley Rock Company for mining purposes. The 
remaining 173-acre portion of the total 242-acre parcel 
is currently leased on a month-to-month basis to 
Pacific Nurseries of California, Inc. and Mission Valley 
Rock Company for agricultural purposes. This month- 
to-month lease with Pacific Nurseries of California, 
Inc., which did not require and thus was not approved 
by the Board of Supervisors, was entered into by the 
PUC in January of 1995, and currently generates 
approximately $77,850 of annual revenue for the PUC. 

The 69-acre parcel currently leased to Mission Valley 
Rock Company for mining purposes is part of a larger 
204-acre parcel PUC lease, which extends to the north 
side of Interstate 680. This 204-acre mining lease, 
with the Mission Valley Rock Company, which was 
previously approved by the Board of Supervisors, 
began in February of 1992 and extends for 20 years, or 
until 2012. An additional adjacent 48-acre parcel 
month-to-month lease with Mission Valley Rock 
Company, for mining and material storage began in 
January of 1978. Mr. Gary Dowd of the PUC advises 
that this 48-acre lease was last amended by the Board 
of Supervisors in 1981. According to Mr. Dowd, 
Mission Valley Rock Company is currently paying the 
PUC $.776 per ton, based on 10.5 percent of the 
average sales price of the tonnage sold. These two 
existing leases with the Mission Valley Rock Company 
in the Sunol Valley together generated $1,202,933 of 
revenues for the PUC in FY 1999-2000. Over the past 
ten years, between 1990 and 2000, these three Mission 
Valley Rock Company leases generated a total of 
$9,384,073 of revenues for the PUC. 

If the proposed new 242-acre lease is approved, the 
existing 69-acre parcel lease with the Mission Valley 
Rock Company would be transferred into the proposed 
new 242-acre parcel lease. Mr. Dowd advises that this 
transfer of the 69 acres is being proposed to include all 
portions of the site south of 1-680 into one contiguous 
lease. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

58 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



On December 8, 1994, the Alameda County Board of 
Supervisors approved a permit for Mission Valley Rock 
Company to mine the subject 242-acre PUC parcel to a 
depth of 200 feet, and certified a final Environmental 
Impact Report (EIR) adopting findings on the subject 
surface mining project and a statement of overriding 
considerations, in accordance with the California 
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). On September 26, 
2000, the PUC certified the final EIR for the Alameda 
Watershed Management Plan, adopted findings and a 
statement of overriding considerations and approved 
the Watershed Management Plan, in accordance with 
CEQA. On August 3, 2000, the San Francisco 
Planning Commission certified the final EIR for the 
Alameda Watershed Management Plan. The 
Watershed Management Plan includes the Sunol 
Valley Resources Management Element, which covers 
mining activities on watershed lands and the 
Watershed Management Plan EIR is a comprehensive 
management plan for the Alameda Watershed lands 
under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco PUC. 

The proposed resolution would authorize the PUC to 
enter into a new 40-year lease with the Mission Valley 
Rock Company to (1) operate and maintain a sand and 
gravel quarry and incidental vineyard and orchard, in 
accordance with the PUC's preferred mining plan and 
approved landscape and recreation plan; (2) pay to the 
PUC an annual base rent of $100,000 per year for the 
first 20 years of the lease, or a total of $2,000,000; (3) 
pay to the PUC an additional 10.5 percent of the 
average sales price per ton charged by the Mission 
Valley Rock Company for aggregate sand and gravel, 
including overburden with adjustments to this 
percentage rate every five years as reasonably 
determined by the City based on an independent 
appraisal of the fair market rates; and (4) perform all 
mitigation measures as set forth in the Alameda 
County mining permit, other approved plans, permits 
and the subject lease, in order to minimize the impact 
of the mining activity on surrounding lands. The 
proposed resolution also states that the Board of 
Supervisors has reviewed the Alameda County EIR, 
the Alameda Watershed Management Plan EIR and 
the CEQA findings, and that the Board of Supervisors 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

59 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

concurs with and adopts such findings and conclusions 
and that there is no need to prepare a subsequent EIR. 

Comments: 1. Mr. Dowd prepared Attachment II, which includes a 

letter to the President of the Board of Supervisors 
dated October 26, 2000, and a follow-up email to the 
Budget Analyst's Office to address the issues for the 
proposed hearing (File 00-1834) to consider alternative 
proposals for the PUC's 242 acres of land with the 
proposed 40-year lease with the Mission Valley Rock 
Company, with respect to the total revenue generated, 
the ecological impact on the local ecosystem, 
community support and input, water storage, impact 
on the restoration of the Water Temple and other 
issues. As referenced on the last page of Attachment 
II, one alternative proposal was submitted to the PUC 
from Elliston Vineyards. That proposal is included as 
Attachment III. As discussed in Attachment III, this 
alternative lease would be for 30 years, with two five- 
year options, or a total of 40 years. For each of the first 
five years, the City would receive $50,000 per year, 
increasing to $100,000 per year for the next five years. 
Beginning in 2011 and through the remainder of the 
initial 30-year lease, Elliston Vineyards would pay the 
City $193,000 per year, for a total of $4,610,000 over 
the fife of the 30-year period, as compared to the 
proposed lease with the Mission Valley Rock Company, 
wherein the City would realize between $52 million 
and $64 million over the 40-year lease. 

2. As shown in Attachment I, the Sunol Water Temple 
is situated adjacent to and immediately southwest of 
the subject lease area. Mr. Dowd advises that the PUC 
has recently completed a $2 million restoration of the 
Sunol Water Temple. In accordance with the EIR, the 
subject mining lease requires that the Mission Valley 
Rock Company (1) backfill and landscape a one- 
quarter mile radius resource protection buffer around 
the Sunol Water Temple, and (2) the timing and 
sequence of mining and mining reclamation must be 
completed in the beginning of the lease in order to 
expedite mining and reclamation in order to create 
additional usable area for recreation near the Sunol 
Water Temple. Under the proposed lease, the Mission 
Valley Rock Company could not begin mi nin g 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

60 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



activities on tbe site during tbe first five to six years of 
the lease, while the required planting and landscaping 
activities are undertaken, and to provide s uffi cient 
time for the planted vegetation to mature. According 
to Mr. Dowd, of the total 242 acres to be leased under 
the proposed resolution, a total of approximately 139 
acres, or 57 percent, would be the actual mined area. 
The remaining 103 acres would be for the required 
landscaping, vegetation and vineyards. Once the 
mining activities on the proposed site are initiated by 
the Mission Valley Rock Company in approximately 
2006, the mitigation measures, identified above for the 
Sunol Water Temple, would be completed. 

3. Mr. Dowd advises that the proposed lease is for 40 
years because it is anticipated to take that full length 
of time for the quarry pits to be excavated. Revenue 
projections were provided to the Budget Analyst's 
Office by the Mission Valley Rock Company, which 
assume (1) a four percent annual increase in the 
average price per ton of quarry material, (2) a fixed 
10.5 percent rate for the City (although the proposed 
lease permits adjustment in this rate every five years 
of the lease based on an independent appraisal of the 
fair market rates), and (3) up to two million tons of 
material would be quarried annually. Based on these 
projections, beginning in 2006, the proposed 
percentage lease provision is projected to generate 
between $50 million to $62 million to the PUC over 
the life of the 40-year lease, depending upon whether 
the Mission Valley Rock Company is able to excavate a 
total of 34 million to 40 million tons of quarried 
material from the site. Over the entire 40-year term, 
this results in an average of approximately $1,250,000 
to $1,550,000 per year, although less revenue would be 
realized in the early years, with such revenues 
increasing over the term of the lease. These revenues 
would be in addition to the $2,000,000 of total base 
revenues ($100,000 annually) realized during the first 
20 years of the project, for a total revenue estimate of 
between $52 million and $64 million over the life of 
the 40-year lease, for an average of between 
$1,300,000 and $1,600,000 per year over the life of the 
40-year lease. These revenues assume a rate 
beginning in 2006 of approximately $1.08 per ton, to 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

61 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



be paid to the PUC. As noted above, these estimates 
have not been adjusted every five years, as the lease 
permits, to reflect additional potential revenues that 
are likely to be received by the City, and as such, 
should be considered conservative estimates. As 
discussed above, currently, the PUC receives 
$1,202,933 in annual revenues based on $.776 per ton 
calculation of the 10.5 percent payment rate from the 
existing Mission Valley Rock Company leases, which 
date back to 1992 and 1978. Mr. Dowd advises that 
mining activities will continue under the two existing 
mining leases for approximately the next five to six 
years. At approximately that time, the proposed new 
40-year lease would begin generating the additional 
revenues, as discussed above. 

Mr. Dowd advises that the proposed lease includes 
10.5 percent of the average sales price per ton for the 
excavated material rather than 10.5 percent of the 
total gross sales because (1) it is the industry standard 
method and the long-standing practice with this 
tenant, and (2) it is anticipated that the City will 
receive greater revenues based on this methodology 
due to the fact that a greater tonnage of the less 
expensive material (gravel) is sold than the tonnage of 
the more expensive material (sand). In addition, the 
Mission Valley Rock Company has agreed to pay this 
average sales price for the sale of overburden, which is 
not included in the calculation of the average price, 
which is sold at much lower rates than either sand or 
gravel. 

4. Mr. Dowd advises that the proposed revenues would 
be deposited into the PUC's Operating Fund. In 
addition, Mr. Joshua Milstein of the City Attorney's 
Office advises that, in accordance with Section 5.06 
(B)(1) of the 1984 Settlement Agreement and Master 
Water Sales Contract between the City and its 
suburban water customers, the revenues received from 
the proposed lease are considered non-operating 
revenues for the PUC. As such, Mr. Milstein advises 
that the suburban water purchasers would not receive 
credit for these lease revenues. These lease revenues 
would only be available for projects benefiting retail 
water ratepayers in San Francisco. Proposition H, 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

62 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



approved by San Francisco voters on June 2,1998 
mandates that water rates are to remain at their 
current levels until July 1, 2006. Since the PUC's 
water rates in San Francisco have been frozen until 
2006, Mr. Milstein advises that the proposed 
additional lease revenues could be used to offset a 
portion of the capital costs for water system 
improvements in San Francisco. 

5. Mr. Dowd advises that the Mission Valley Rock 
Company was selected on a sole source basis for the 
proposed 40-year lease because Mission Valley Rock 
Company had an approved mining permit from 
Alameda County, the3 r were the only organization that 
was able to meet the CEQA requirements, in 
accordance with the approved Alameda Watershed 
Management Plan and the surface mining permit 
issued by Alameda County (which includes the 
requirement that the material be transported to a 
processing plant by conveyor belt), and they already 
have an existing mining processing plant on the 
adjacent PUC property. According to Mr. Dowd, the 
Mission Valley Rock Company would install a 
conveyor belt system to transport the mined material 
from the proposed lease site under 1-680 to the 
adjacent parcel to process the material. 

6. The proposed lease also permits the City to request 
that the Mission Valley Rock Company provide sand, 
road base, drain rock and other mined materials or 
products to the City, at the least costly rate that the 
Mission Valley Rock Company charges to its wholesale 
customers, in exchange for a credit against the 
percentage rent. Mr. Dowd advises that this provision 
was added to insure that the PUC would be able to 
receive any needed gravel material at the best rate 
over the next 40 years, instead of purchasing the 
necessary material from other companies. Mr. Dowd 
reports that the PUC Watershed staff estimate that 
the PUC would purchase approximately $30,000 
annually of sand, road base, drain rock and other 
mined material from the Mission Valley Rock 
Company to maintain PUC's access and fire 
maintenance roads throughout the Watershed area. 
Mr. Dowd could not provide historical records of the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

63 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

amount of such material purchased in the recent past 
by the PUC. 

7. Mr. Charles Sullivan of the City Attorney's Office 
advises that the proposed lease also requires that an 
excavated pit be provided at the Sunol site by the 
Mission Valley Rock to permit the PUC to convert the 
excavated pit into an approximately 16,000 acre-foot 
water reservoir for use by the PUC for water storage. 
According to the PUC's Water Supply Master Plan, the 
PUC currently has an estimated 71 million gallon per 
day shortfall in existing water supplies available to 
the PUC service area in San Francisco, Alameda, San 
Mateo and Santa Clara counties. Mr. Milstein advises 
that the proposed 16,000-acre foot reservoir would be 
available, by the end of the proposed 40-year lease, to 
address a small portion of the PUC's water reservoir 
shortage. Based on an estimated $2,000 to $2,500 an 
acre-foot for construction of a similar reservoir by the 
City, it is estimated that it would cost approximately 
$32 million to $40 million ($2,000 to $2,500 per acre- 
foot times 16,000 acre feet) for the PUC to construct a 
similar water reservoir. 

8. Mr. Milstein advises that a lawsuit has recently 
been filed by a community group known as Save Our 
Sunol (SOS), challenging the PUC's review of the 
Alameda County Watershed Plan, under CEQA. 
According to Mr. Milstein, a similar lawsuit was filed 
by SOS in 1995 concerning the mining permit issued 
to the Mission Valley Rock Company at the subject 
site. Mr. Milstein reports that SOS lost this earlier 
lawsuit, at the Court of Appeals, and Mr. Milstein 
advises that a similar outcome is likely for the current 
lawsuit. Mr. Sullivan notes that the proposed lease 
includes an indemnification from the Mission Valley 
Rock Company for any costs incurred by the City 
relating to the City's issuance of this lease, including 
any third party lawsuits challenging the lease. 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy matter 
for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

64 



Attachment I 




65.. 



Sent By: BUREAU OF COMM'L LAND MGMT . 



4154875200; 



Nov-9-00 11:01; 

Attachment II 



Page 3/3 



Page 1 of 3~ 




San Francisco Public Utilities commission 

I IS5 HwaCTtr., *rw FlOOft. S— . fnw<*40 0<i03 • Td_ 14 1 Si 3i40i Bo •■■■Ml 01 twjiti 

October 26, 2000 



WATER 

HETCH HETCHY 



Honorable Tom Ammiano, President 
San Francisco Board of Supervisors 
water' a' power City Hall 
clean water -| Q r Carlton B. Goodlett Place 
San Francisco, CA 94103 

Willie L. Brown, Jr. 



E. Oenret NomiBnay 
Victor a Mdmji 



Frank L Cook 
Ann Mouse Caen 
Asnok Kunrvir Brian 

Jonn P. Munv*. jr. 



Re: Proposed Quarry Lease Between San Francisco 
Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) and Mission 
Valley Rock Company 

Dear President Ammiano: 

On September 26, 2000. the SFPUC approved the above 
referenced quarry lease and forwarded it to the San Francisco 
Board of Supervisors for consideration. This was received by the 
Board on September 27, 2000 (File Number 001698) but has been 
placed under the 30 day rule which requires scheduling before the 
Finance & Labor Committee on November 15. It has also come to 
our attention that you have authored a Resolution urging the 
SFPUC to convene hearings to consider alternative development 
proposals for the 242 acres of land on which the quarry will be 
located. You have also suggested that the SFPUC should formally 
reopen the bidding process to consider, compare and weigh the 
merits of any alternative plan that has been formally submitted to 
the SFPUC. In addition you have called for hearings before the 
Finance & Labor Committee on this issue (File Number 001834) 



Please be advised that the SFPUC has leased its Sunol 
Valley lands for quarrying for several decades. The proposed lease 
represents the culmination of an 8-year planning process under the 
Alameda Watershed Management Plan, which was also adopted by 
the SFPUC on September 26, 2000. The quarrying alternative 
selected by the SFPUC is consistent with mining permits issued by 
Alameda County, and seeks to maximize both mining revenue and 
future water storage in the completed quarry pits. Put simply, the 
mining lessees are paying the City to dig it a reservoir, which, rf 
constructed on its own, would cost an estimated $2,000 an acre- 
foot. 1 The 16,000-acre foot reservoir, which would be created by 
this lease, thus has a value of $32 million in today's construction 
costs. 



Source: Water Supply Master Plan recently adopted by the PUC. 




T^^TTzT^T^^^^^T---*->- 



66 



By: BUREAU OF COMM'L LAND MGMT.; 4154875200; Nov-9-00 11:00; Page 2/3 

'„ • '"' Attachment II 

Page 2 of 3 



President Ammiano 
Page 2 
October 26, 2000 



Opponents of the quarry lease have suggested that the land 
could generate equivalent income from agricultural uses, The 
SFPUC's recently adopted Water Supply Master Plan concluded 
that there is a 71 million gallon per day shortfall in existing water 
supplies available to the SFPUC service area in San Francisco, 
San Mateo, Alameda and Santa Clara counties. Assuming that the 
SFPUC had sufficient water supplies to devote to agriculture, our 
experience with agricultural leasing indicates that expected 
agricultural revenue would not approach royalty revenues from 
mining. In fact a recent submittal by Eliiston Vineyards dated 
September 22, 2000 provides approximately $16,54-0,000 in 
revenue over a forty (40) year period (said amount includes 
510,000,000 from a 69 acre parcel that would be mined by Mission 
Valley Rock as part of the vineyard proposal) while the lease with 
Mission Valley Rock will provide approximately $50,000,000 over 
the same period, in addition to the finished asset value of a 
completed reservoir. 

As you know, the SFPUC's water rates in San Francisco have 
been frozen under a voter approved rate freeze until 2006. In 
approximately 1993 a management audit of the SFPUC 
recommended maximizing income from SFPUC land management 
activities. The proposed lease is entirely consistent with that past 
recommendation, and the estimated $50 million dollar total revenue 
from this lease could be used to offset a portion of the capital costs 
for water system improvements in San Francisco, reducing required 
future rate increases for City and County of San Francisco 
residents. In conclusion, we believe that the proposed lease 
represents prudent utility management on the part of the SFPUC. 

We urge you to move approval of this lease forward in the 
most expeditious manner possible, especially with the scheduling of 
the quarry lease hearing before the Finance Committee (File 
number 001698). 

If you or your staff has any questions about the proposed 
lease, please do not hesitate to call me at 554-3160 



Very truly yours, 



Ic-hi^ P. Mullart^, Jr. 
;rai Manager 



cc: San Francisco Board of Supervisors 
SFPUC Commissioners 



67 



Attachment II 
Page 3 of 3 



Date: 11/9/00 
Sender: Gary Dowd 
To: Debra Newman 

Priority: Normal 
Subject: Qu arry Alternat ives 



Debra, per your request I am writing to confirm that to the best of my 

knowledge the SFPUC did not actively solicit or analyze other alternatives 

for 

the proposed quarry site in Sunol, Calif. This was based on the fact that this 

area has long been the subject of water storage expansion and the total 

revenue 

generated by the gravel quarry (in excess of $50 million dollars) made other 

alternatives incompatible with the overall goals of the SFPUC. There was in 

fact one proposal submitted to the SFPUC from Elliston Vineyards; however, it 

came in very late in the process and clearly fell short from both a water 

storage stand point and revenue stand point. The MVR lease proposal is 

consistent with the SFPUC Alameda Watershed Management Plan which the SFPUC 

spent countless hours preparing and reviewing before taking action to approve 

it. No other proposals can or will meet the SFPUC objectives and therefore 

the 

MVR lease is strongly endorsed by staff and the SFPUC as being the only 

feasible 

alternative . 



68 



Sep- 22- 2000 II :39AM ELLISTON VINEYARDS 925 362 0316 



.it III 




QUoi^/?y VOnGUOACLd- 



September 22, 2000 



Land Use Proposal 

San Francisco PUC 

1155 Market St, 5 th Floor 
San Francisco, CA. 94103 



The following offers an alternative use for the San Francisco Water Property located at Interstate 680 and 
Paloma Road in Sunol, California. This proposal would be economically sound for the citizens of San 
Francisco, environmentally sound for the Sunol area and would have the support of the Sunol community. 
It would provide San Francisco the opportunity to be fiscally responsible while at the same time being a 
good neighbor to the Sunol community and the Southern Alameda County residents. 

Statement of Intent 

The amount of prime coastal land suitable for agriculture is diminishing. It would be Elliston Vineyards 
intent to use the land for agricultural purposes primarily vineyards, protecting this precious resource. 
The best part of the plan is that San Francisco earns income from both Elliston Vineyards on 193 acres and 
Mission Valley Rock on the remaining 69 acres. At the end of the lease term with Elliston Vineyards the 
land is available to the next generation of San Franciscans and Sunolians to use for best interests. 

General Project Overview 

The area desired is 193 acres of San Francisco Water Property located in Sunol, California, at the 
intersection of Interstate 680, and Paloma Road and Pleasanton-Sunol Road. Currently the San Francisco 
Water Department under the direction of the Public Utilities Commission manages this property. The Polk 
Water Temple is also located ot the south-west corner of the property. The City of San Francisco is 
curreody restoring this historic temple. 

The land on this property consists roughly of 262 acres mostly flat wuh only minimal grade. Currently this 
land is used by Elliston Vineyards to grow grapes and an independent farmer growing various types of hay 
and grains. The property is leased by Mission Valley Rock Company who sub-lease to Elliston Vineyards. 
Mission Valley Rock Company would mine the remaining 69 acres under the agreement of a previously 
approved plan. 



Proposed Lease Arrangements 

The term of the lease to Elliston Vineyards would be 30 years with two 5 year options. The rent would be 
on a graduating scale allowing Elliston Vineyards to make the substantial capital investment in the planting 



69 



'SeP.22. 2000 1 1 :40AM ELLISTON VINEYARDS 925 362 0316 



and maintaining of the grapevines. This would also allow the 4 years necessary for grapevines to mature 
prior to yielding substantial grape production. 

Elliston Vineyards proposes a lease of £50,000'year for 5 years starting 2001 . In 2006 the rent would 

increase to S100,000/year for the next 5 years of the lease. In 2011 the lease would increase to 

$ 1 93,000/year for the ranaiaing 20 years. The income from Elliston Vineyards would be in addition to the 

agreement between Mission Valley Rock Company and the City of San Francisco. 

When the Board agrees that they would like to proceed with this more responsible use of the land, Elliston 

will work with staff to complete the lease arrangements and timetable. 

Management Structure 

Elliston Vineyards will manage the project We will be working closely with Wente Vineyards and will be 
relying on their expertise and vast experience in this field. It is Elliston Vineyards intent to have Wente 
Vineyards manage the planting and maintenance of the vineyard for the Erst several years of the project. 
Wente Vineyards has substantial background and experience in projects this size and their reputation is 
impeccable. They will also be responsible for the sale of any fruit that will not be used by Elliston. 

Elliston Vineyards Incorporated 

Elliston Vineyards has been in business since 1983. The primary business is the winery and entertainment 
business located in Sunol, California. The other interests Ere a vineyard and winery in Felton, California 
(EUiston Vineyards Santa Cruz Mountains) numerous rental properties in Kauai, Hawaii and a day spa in 
Pleasanton, California Donna Flavctta &. Keith Flavetta have been the owners since 1992 when the 
business was purchased from Ramon and Amy Awtrey (Donna's parents). Donna Flavetta the managing 
general partner is active in the local community. She is currently President of the Livermore Valley 
winegrowers Associating and the Tri- Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau. As a minority 
businesswomen Donna has built Elliston Vineyards into one of the premier businesses m Southern 
Alameda County. Keith is a senior executive with a nationally recognized financial institution with 30 
years of experience in the financial service field. 



70 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Item 7 - File 00-1863 



Department: 



Department of Administrative Services, Real Estate 
Division (RED) 



Item: 



Resolution authorizing an amendment to extend the term 
of an existing one-year License and Hold Harmless 
Agreement for Excavation, Shoring, Underpinning and 
Other Construction Activities ("Agreement") with 
Continental 155 5 th Corporation ("Owner"), and the sole 
tenant in possession, Wells Fargo Bank, for an additional 
three years, to November 17, 2003, to grant the City the 
right to enter the real property at 155 Fifth Street as 
needed to complete construction of the Moscone Center 
Expansion Project ("Moscone West"), and authorizing a 
Reciprocal License and Hold Harmless Agreement for 
Excavation, Shoring, Underpinning and Other 
Activities v i-^eciprocai .ngreenient ) to 



V-VVJJ.13L1 UOOIUU 



provide the Owner similar rights of access in relation to 
the Moscone West site should Owner require such access 
for future construction. 



Description: 



In March of 1996, the voters of San Francisco approved 
the lease financing of a further expansion of the Moscone 
Convention Center (Moscone West) through the issuance 
of $157,500,000 of lease revenue bonds. Moscone West, to 
be located at 4 th and Howard Streets, will consist of an 
800,000 square foot free-standing convention facility, 
providing 300,000 square feet of rentable exhibit and 
meeting room space on three floors. The Moscone West 
expansion will increase the existing approximately 
600,000 rentable square foot of exhibit and meeting room 
space for Moscone Center by 50 percent, to provide a total 
of approximately 900,000 square feet of leasable 
convention and exhibit space. This expansion will enable 
the City to attract a greater number and larger 
conventions than are currently able to be booked into the 
existing facility. The remaining 500,000 square feet of the 
Moscone West expansion project (800,000 square foot 
expansion less 300,000 square foot of leaseable exhibit 
and meeting rooms) would be used for lobby space, utility 
rooms, truck delivery areas, elevator and stairs, back 
offices, and related support services. Construction of 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

71 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Moscone West began in August of 1999, and is scheduled 
to be completed in the Spring of 2003. 

Construction of Moscone West requires that construction 
personnel have ongoing access to areas outside of the 
construction site. Specifically, construction crews require 
ongoing access to the property located at 155 Fifth Street, 
which is adjacent to the Moscone West construction site. 
Activities that have taken place, and would continue to 
take place on the 155 Fifth Street property that are 
necessary for the completion of Moscone West include 
providing structural support underneath buildings near 
where excavation is taking place (underpinning), and 
creating temporary structures to hold earth in place to 
prevent it from collapsing into excavated areas (tie- 
backs). Additionally, construction personnel will need 
general use of the site to operate cranes and other 
construction equipment. 

For the initial period of construction, on November 17, 
1999, Anthony DeLucchi, the Director Of Property, 
approved a one-year License and Hold Harmless 
Agreement for Excavation, Shoring, Underpinning and 
Other Construction Activities with the owner and the sole 
tenant of the 155 Fifth Street property as allowed under 
Administrative Code Section 23.19 to provide the City's 
construction crews with access to areas outside of the 
construction site. The proposed resolution would amend 
this existing one-year agreement by extending it for three 
years, through November 17, 2003. The proposed 
resolution would also authorize a Reciprocal License and 
Hold Harmless Agreement to provide the owner of 155 
Fifth Street with similar rights to those the City has 
regarding access to the Moscone West site. The 
Reciprocal License and Hold Harmless Agreement would 
go into effect on the date the agreement document is 
executed, and would expire after 30 years if no 
construction were undertaken at the 155 Fifth Street site, 
or 48 months after the commencement of any construction 
at that site. The Reciprocal License and Hold Harmless 
Agreement would ensure that if the Owner of the 155 
Fifth Street opted to undertake construction at the 155 
Fifth Street property, the Owner would have access to 
Moscone West for purposes of construction, and the City 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

72 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

would be held harmless by the Owner for related 
liabilities. 

Comments: 1. According to Mr. Donnell Choy of the City Attorney's 

Office, the License and Hold Harmless Agreement 
between the City and the Owner and tenant of 155 Fifth 
Street, which was both entered into and became effective 
on November 17, 1999, was agreed upon by all parties 
only after extensive negotiations. According to Mr. Choy, 
this was in part due to the fact that construction plans 
required that the City have access to the 155 Fifth Street 
Property. This, in turn, left the City with no alternative 
but to accommodate the indemnification requirements of 
the owner and tenant of 155 Fifth Street property. Mr. 
Choy states that the indemnification provisions of the 
Agreement include specific assurances against any 
damage due to a) settling of earth underneath the 
structure on the 155 Fifth Street property caused by the 
City's construction activities, b) the release of hazardous 
materials on the subject property caused by the City's 
construction activities, c) accidental damage to or 
puncture of underground fuel tanks located on the subject 
property caused by the City's construction activities, and 
d) harmful effects from diesel fumes and dust on the 
building and personnel employed on the subject property 
caused by the City's construction activities. The 
Agreement also includes a general hold harmless 
agreement regarding accident or injury caused by City 
construction while on the 155 Fifth Street property. 

2. Mr. Choy states that the Administrative Code, Section 
23.19, allows the Director of Property to enter into lease 
agreements for periods of less than one year without 
obtaining prior approval from the Board of Supervisors. 
Mr. Choy further states that the license and hold 
harmless agreement is a "permit, contract or other 
agreement" within the meaning of Section 23.19 of the 
Administrative Code. Mr. Choy notes that since both the 
proposed agreements are in excess of one year, Board of 
Supervisors approval is required. 

3. According to documents provided by RED, the original 
one-year License and Hold Harmless Agreement 
contained a provision that stated that, subsequent to 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

73 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



execution of the one-year Agreement, RED would in good 
faith seek approval from the Board of Supervisors to enter 
into the Reciprocal License and Indemnification 
Agreement. Mr. Steve Alms of RED states that RED now 
seeks the approval of the Board of Supervisors for a three- 
year extension of the original License and Hold Harmless 
Agreement, and for approval of the Reciprocal License 
and Hold Harmless Agreement. 

4. Mr. Choy reports that the Reciprocal License and Hold 
Harmless Agreement is fair and is similar in scope to the 
License and Hold Harmless Agreement in that it protects 
the City against damages incurred by the City if the 
owner were to require access to the Moscone West site for 
future construction of the 155 Fifth Street site. 

5. According to Mr. Alms, the Reciprocal License and 
Hold Harmless Agreement was the only consideration 
sought by the owner of 155 Fifth Street in exchange for 
granting the City the right to perform construction 
activities on the 155 Fifth Street site. Therefore, the City 
is not required to pay the Owner of 155 Fifth Street site 
for access to that site. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Item 8 -File 00-1876 



Department: 
Item: 



Mayor's Office of Housing (MOH) 

Resolution authorizing the issuance and delivery of 
Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds in an aggregate 
principal amount not to exceed $11,750,000 for the 
purpose of providing financing for a multifamily rental 
housing project; authorizing the sale of the bonds; 
approving the form of and authorizing the execution of an 
indenture providing the terms and conditions of the 
bonds; approving the form of and authorizing the 
execution of a bond purchase contract providing the terms 
and conditions for the sale of the bonds; approving the 
form of and authorizing the execution of a regulatory 
agreement and declaration of restrictive covenants; 
approving the form of and authorizing the execution of a 
loan agreement; approving the form of and authorizing 
the execution of an intercreditor 1 agreement; approving 
the form of and authorizing the preparation and 
distribution of a preliminary official statement and the 
preparation and distribution of an official statement 
relating to the bonds; approving and authorizing the 
execution and delivery of any document necessary to 
implement this resolution; making low income housing 
findings; ratifying and approving any action heretofore 
taken in connection with the bonds and the project; and 
related matters. 



Amount: 



Source of Funds: 



Description: 



Not to exceed $11,750,000 

Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds 

This proposed resolution would authorize the City to issue 
Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds on December 6, 2000 
in an amount not to exceed $11,750,000 to finance a 
multifamily rental housing development in the South of 
Market neighborhood of the City. Such Multifamily 
Housing Revenue Bonds are authorized under Proposition 
A as approved by the voters in November of 1996. The 
proposed resolution would also approve the form and 



1 Approval of this resolution would create an intercreditor agreement between the funding agencies, 
which are Citibank and the City. An intercreditor agreement provides guidelines regarding how the 
various funding agreements would work together. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

75 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



terms of documents and official notices related to the bond 
sale, and authorize City officials to take various actions 
necessary to carry out the sale of the bonds. 

The City's authority to issue the proposed $11,750,000 in 
Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds comes from Article I, 
Chapter 43 of the Administrative Code, entitled the 
Residential Mortgage Revenue Bond Law, and Section 
9.107 of the Charter. These provisions authorize the City 
to incur bonded indebtedness for the purpose of providing 
mortgage financing for the acquisition, construction, or 
rehabilitation of housing in the City to encourage the 
availability of residential financing for persons and 
families of low or moderate income. Therefore, the City 
can issue Revenue Bonds to provide funding to develop or 
refinance low- and moderate-income multifamily rental 
housing. Bondholders of these Revenue Bonds are paid 
from the revenues generated from rental housing projects. 
According to Ms. Theresa Alzarez of the City Attorney's 
Office, these Revenue Bonds do not require the City to 
pledge repayment of the bonds, and the City has no legal 
liability with respect to the repayment of the Revenue 
Bonds. With rental developments, the bondholders have 
only two forms of recourse for payment: (1) the project 
rental and mortgage payment revenues, and (2) credit 
enhancement (such as bond insurance or letters of credit) 
held by project developers, provided by private parties. 

The general provisions of the sale of the Multifamily 
Housing Revenue Bonds would be as follows: 

• The sale of the bonds is tentatively scheduled for 
December 6, 2000. 

• The bonds would be issued at a variable interest rate 
not to exceed eight percent and would have a final 
maturity not later than December 1, 2034. Additionally, 
the proposed bonds would have a variable interest rate, 
which could not exceed eight percent, throughout the 34- 
year life of the bond. 

• A draft official statement describing the bonds to be 
issued is included with the proposed resolution for 
approval by the Board of Supervisors. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

76 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



The subject Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds would 
be used to partially finance the acquisition and 
construction of a 74-unit multifamily rental housing 
development located at 1166 Howard Street in the South 
of Market for low- and moderate-income persons. The 
total estimated project costs will be $28,885,764, as shown 
in Attachment I, provided by the MOH. In addition to the 
proposed bond financing of $11,750,000, the total project 
cost of $28,885,764 for the subject 74-unit multifamily 
rental housing development will be financed in the 
following manner: (1) by $10,822,233, including a 
$3,500,000 grant from the City's Affordable Housing and 
Home Ownership Bond Program (Proposition A, approved 
in November of 1996 2 ), a $5,522,233 loan from the City's 
Affordable Housing Fund, and $1,800,000 from the 
Redevelopment Agency's Tax Increment Housing 
Program, (2) by $6,307,217 in Low-Income Housing Tax 
Credit Equity from investments by limited partners, and 
(3) $6,314 in developer equity. The developer, 1166 
Howard Street Associates, has already acquired a site 
which is approximately 1.04 acres located at the corner of 
8 th and Howard Streets. The 1166 Howard Street 
Associates is a California limited partnership formed for 
the specific purpose of developing and owning the subject 
multifamily rental housing project. The general partners 
of the developer are two nonprofit organizations, the 
Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corporation 
(TNDC) and the Citizens Housing Corporation (CHC), 
and the tax credit limited partner is Newport Fund 
2001 A. The multifamily rental housing development 
would be located at 1166 Howard Street and would be 
known as the 8 th and Howard Family Apartments. 

The proposed multifamily rental housing development 
will be comprised of one five-story building containing a 
total of 74 units. According to Mr. LaTorre, 73 of the 74 
units (with the exception of one manager's unit) would be 
designated as below-market rentals with rents set at 30 
percent of the household's monthly income. Qualifying 



2 In November of 1996, the voters of San Francisco approved Proposition A, which authorized the 
City to issue $100,000,000 in General Obligation Bonds to: (1) finance the development of rental 
housing affordable to low income households and (2) to provide down payment assistance to low- and 
moderate-income first-time homebuyers (the "Affordable Housing Bonds"). 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

77 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Budget: 



households in the City must earn no more than 60 percent 
of area median income (see Comment No. 3). The 
development's construction is expected to begin in 
February of 2001 and be completed by July of 2002. The 
development would contain the following unit mix: 12 
one-bedroom units; 40 two-bedroom units; and 22 three- 
bedroom units. Unit amenities will include: refrigerator, 
range/oven, hydronic heating systems and storage space. 
The interior finish will include countertops, carpeting in 
the living areas, vinyl flooring in the kitchen/bathrooms, 
window treatments and cabinets. The project will also 
contain a secured entry', an outdoor courtyard, a 
community room, kitchen, an activity and computer room, 
and offices for management and service provisions. 
Additionally, the ground floor of the project will provide 
over 20,000 square feet of community and economic 
development space, including a licensed childcare center. 
As per the zoning requirements for the area, parking will 
be available for 38 vehicles. 

A summary budget for the total project cost of 
$28,885,764, provided by the MOH, is as follows: 

Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds 

(subject to this request) $11,750,000 

Developer Equity 6,314 

Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Equity 6,307,217 

Direct and Indirect Public Funds 10,822.233 

TOTAL $28,885,764 

Attachment I, provided by the MOH, contains budget 
details to support the subject project. 



Comments: 



1. According to Mr. LaTorre, the MOH expects to issue 
the proposed Revenue Bonds, not to exceed $11,750,000, 
on December 6, 2000. The proposed Revenue Bonds would 
have a variable interest rate, not to exceed eight percent. 
The proposed resolution states that the proposed Revenue 
Bonds may not be issued initially at an interest rate that 
exceeds eight percent. Mr. LaTorre advises that if the 
bonds were issued at this time, these bonds would have 
an estimated interest rate of four percent. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

78 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



2. Mr. LaTorre notes that under the affordability 
standards set forth by the City's Proposition A Bond 
Program loan, the multifamily housing development at 
1166 Howard Street will be subject to rent limits below 
the fair market value for a period of 55 years. Mr. 
LaTorre advises that these affordability standards require 
the developers, 1166 Howard Street Associates, to offer 73 
of the 74 total units at below-market rate rent. The units 
must be affordable to, and occupied by, households at or 
below 60 percent of the area median income. Even if these 
34-year bonds were paid off early, 1166 Howard Street 
Associates would be required to maintain the 73 units at 
below-market rate until 2055. 

3. According to Mr. LaTorre, the affordability of the 73 
below-market rate units at the 8 th and Howard 
Apartments is defined by the Federal Tax Code as units 
affordable to households designated "low-income and 
below" by the Federal Department of Housing and Urban 
Development (HUD). HUD considers "low-income" to be 
60 percent of the metropolitan statistical area median 
income. Mr. LaTorre advises the median income in the 
metropolitan statistical area for the year 2000 is $74,900 
for a 4-person household, and that qualifying households 
in San Francisco must earn no more than $31,450 for a 
one-person household, no more than $35,950 for a two- 
person household, no more than $40,450 for a 3-person 
household, and no more than $44,950 for a 4-person 
household. 

4. According to Mr. LaTorre, and as stated in Attachment 
II, since 1985, the City has issued a total of $120 million 
in Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds. These bonds 
have provided funds for below-market rate mortgages to 
developers of rental housing, with a portion of the units 
reserved for low-income households. Mr. LaTorre reports 
that since 1985, the program has financed the 
development of 1,245 rental units in the City, including 
315 units, or approximately 25 percent, reserved for low- 
income households. 

5. The Board of Supervisors authorized application in 
June of 2000 to the California Debt Limit Allocation 
Committee (CDLAC) for bond issuance authority on this 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

79 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



project. CDLAC granted authority to the City in 
September of 2000 (Resolution 566-00). In accordance 
with CDLAC requirements, the bonds must be issued by 
December 6, 2000. 

6. According to Mr. LaTorre, Cahill and Lem, which was 
selected through a Redevelopment Agency Request for 
Qualifications process, will serve as the General 
Contractor for the construction of the Project. The design 
architect for the Project is David Baker FAIA & 
Associates, which was also selected through a 
Redevelopment Agency Request for Qualifications 
process. 

7. As previously stated, approval of the proposed 
resolution would authorize the issuance of up to 
$11,750,000 in Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds and a 
loan of those proceeds to the developer under the terms of 
the loan agreement. However, all future expenditures of 
the bond proceeds would be subject to appropriation 
approval by the Board of Supervisors. 

8. As shown in Attachment III, the proposed sale of the 
total $11,750,000 in revenue bonds would result in a total 
debt service of approximately $15,917,013 ($11,750,000 in 
principal payments plus $4,167,013 in interest costs) over 
the 34-year life of the bonds. Following repayment of 
$7,775,000 in principal and $460,096 in interest of the 
bonds in one lump sum approximately one year following 
the completion of construction, which will be July of 2002, 
the average debt service payment per year would be 
approximately $256,064, calculated by dividing the total 
remaining payments ($7,681,917) by an estimated 30 
years. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

80 



8th/How&rd CDLAC Application 



LeOURCES AND USES-OF FUNDS 

■"'sOURCES OF FUNDS 

Tax-Exempt Bond Proceed* "A" (Amortized) 

Ta*-£xempr Bond Proceeds "B" (Bridge) 

Toxao'e Bond Proceeds 

Developer Equity 

Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Equity 

Direct & Indirod PuOlic Funds 

TOTAL SOURCES 

USES OF FUNDS 

Air iTights Acquisition 

Demolition 

Unit Construction 

Paridng (Including underground) 

Site improvements 

Environmental Remediation 

Construction Escalation @5% 

Construction Contingency <S | 7.5> < & 

Personal property 

Architecture/Engineering 

Local Fees 

Insurance 

Taxes During Construction 

N gOl - Construction/Permanent Financing 

po'oisal 
Bond issuance Costs 
Construction Perloa InteresT (16 mos.) 
Construction Interest Carryover (2 mos.) 
Son Construction Interest 
Title, Escrow and Kecordmg - Capitalized 
Title. Escrow and Recording- Expensed 
Development Fee 
Interest on development <&e 
Mafketlng/Rentup 
Sort Cost Contingency 
Capitalized Operating Reserve [30% ot EGI) 
Auoit 

Legal - Syndication 
LogaJ - Organization 
Consultant - Syndication 
Tax Credit Allocation Committee Fees 
Repayment of bridge loan I interest 

Subtotal Uses 

Ropayment of bridge loan principal 

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 



AMOUNT 

3.975.CO0 
7.775.PgO_ 






11.750.000 




6.314 

■6,307.217 

28.885.763 / 



COST 

2.910.777 
206.7156 

10.853.303 

<jos.ono 

112,202 

655,000 

62A.275 

966, 3W 

131,6.13 

■ttO&OOQ 

298.200 

73.000 

27,600 

■ 50.000 

10,000 

.279,811 

630.237 

10/'. 119 



30.0CO 

20.000 

970,000 

D 

54.750 

"90.030 

115.870 

TC.ooa 

29,500 
"5.500 
27,500 
37,146 
869.328 

7.056,294 
2fi,aS5,703 



land Purchase 


2,010.777 


OrvStra & Otfshe ' 


973.6^J 


Horn Construction Costs 


11.574,372 


Arcnlt-wct A fnQrn.i;rtng 


605CGG 


&*nKe<xi & Profn 


810.206 


Developer fee 


970.COJ 


Cost ot issuance 


279,511 


CoO«ra*zj*3 infefBil 


530.237 


Otner Soft Costs 


Z.975.43S 


SubtolO' 


Zl,£29.469 


Plus bridge loan repayment 


7,056.294 


lotal 


28.805.7S3 



81 




Attachment II 

MAYOR'S OFFICE OF HOUSING 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

willie lewis brown, jr. 
mayor 

marcia rosen 
director 
MEMORANDUM 

October 20, 2000 

To: The Honorable Leland Yee, Chair, Finance and Labor Committee 

The Honorable Tom Ammiano, Board Presideni 
The Honorable Sue Bicrman 



From: Marcia Rosen 



>£. 



Subject: Resolution Authorizing Issuance of Multifamily Housing 

Revenue Bonds (8" 1 &. Howard Family Housing) 



Requested Action: The Mayor's Office of Housing respectfully requests consideration of the 
attached resolution authorizing issuance of Mulufamily Housing Revenue Bonds for the 8 Ul and 
Howard Family Apartments by the Finance and Labor Committee on Wednesday, November 8, 
2000. 

Background: Since 1985, the City and County of San Francisco has issued a total of 

$120 million in Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds. These bonds provided funds for below- 
market rate mortgages to developers of rental housing, with a portion of the units reserved for 
low income households. Since 1985, the program has. financed development of 1,245 rental units 
in the City, including 315 units reserved for low income households. 

Repayments of these mortgages are used to make principal and interest payments on the bonds. 
The bonds are not "full faith and credit" obligations of the City and County of San Francisco; 
bondholders are guaranteed payment only from the mortgage revenues. 

This resolution authorizes the City to issue bonds for the financing of the 8 th and Howard Family 
Apartments at 1 166 Howard Street. The development will be a 74 unit building, with all of units 
(excepting one manager's unit) set aside as below-market rate rentals. The development is 
expected to commence construction in approximately February 2001 and be completed August 
2000. 

The developer of the property is a joint venture of Tenderloin Neighborhood Development 
Corporation and Citizens Housing Corporation, two non-profit housing developers with 
extensive development experience in providing housing for low income San Franciscans. TNDC 
and CHC will form a single asset corporation which will be the managing general j mner of 
1 166 Howard Street Associates. In addition to bond financing, the development will financed 



>5 VAN NESS AVENUE, SUITE 600 • SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102 • (415)252-3177 • FAX (415) 252-3140 

TDD (415) 252-3107 



82 



■ -. tachment II 

Pa^e 2 of 2 



Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds (8 th and Howard Family Housing) 
October 20, 2000 
Page 2 



by loans from the City's Affordable Housing and Home Ownership Bond Program (Proposition 
A) and the Redevelopment Agency's Tax Increment Housing Program, and investments by 
limited partners who will benefit from low income housing tax credits generated by the 
development. 

The project development budget includes all costs of the transaction: bond counsel and 
financial advisor fees, and the City Attorney costs. 

Under the City's Prop A Bond Program loan, the development will be subject to rent regulation 
for a period of 55 years, which is longer than the typical 15 to 30 year affordability of revenue 
bond-financed developments. It is expected that the nonprofit entity will acquire the property 
from the partnership in approximately 15 years, thus ensuring the permanent affordability of the 
development. 

Fiscal Impact: The bonds and related documents clearly state that the bondholders may 

look only to the revenues of the project and to the credit enhancement provider for payments of 
principal and interest on the bonds. Therefore, the City will not be directly or indirectly liable for 
payments on the housing revenue bonds. 

Additional Information: The resolution will be introduced at the Board of Supervisors on 
Monday, October 23, 2000. Bond related documents to be approved by reference in the 
resolution are included in the file. Please contact Joe LaTorre of the Mayor's Office of Housing 
at 252-3188 or (after November 1) Joel Lipski at 252-3119 if you have any questions. 



Cc: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst 
Susan Leal, Treasurer 
Ed Harrington, Controller 



83 



Attachment III 



8TH/H0WARD Mortgage Revenue Bonds 
Estimated debt service 





"A" Bonds 


"B" Bonds 


Total Bonds 


principal 


3,975.000 


7,775.000 


11,750,000 


term (mos ) 


360 


30 




ave. rate 


5.00% 


4.50% 




total payments 


7,681.917 


8,235,096 


15,917,013 


total interest 


3,706,917 


460,096 


4,167,013 



NOTES: 

"A" Bonds to be amortized over 30 years, paid by revenue generated by the development itself. 
"B" Bonds to be paid off one year after completion of construction using City funds and 
tax credit investor funds. 



84 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Item 9 - File 00-1894 

Department: Department of Public Health Public Health (DPH) 

and Community Health Network (HCN) 

Item: Hearing to consider release of reserved funds for 

the Department of Public Health -Community 
Health Network (FY 2000-01 budget) in the 
amount of $1,098,463 to fund overtime 
expenditures at the San Francisco General 
Hospital and Laguna Honda Hospital. 



This is a hearing to consider the release of $1,098,463 in reserved funds in the 
Department of Public Health's (DPH) Fiscal Year 2000-01 budget for overtime 
expenditures. Of the $1,098,463 in reserved funds, $1,019,646 has been reserved for 
overtime expenditures at San Francisco General Hospital and $78,817 has been 
reserved for overtime at Laguna Honda Hospital. During the FY 2000-01 budget 
hearings, the Finance and Labor Committee recommended that one third of annual 
overtime expenditure budgets for several City departments be placed on reserve so 
that the Committee can monitor spending for overtime during the fiscal year. 

San Francisco General Hospital (SFGH) 

1. DPH's approved FY 2000-01 General Fund budget for SFGH includes budgeted 
overtime expenditures of $2,826,727. The Finance and Labor Committee placed 
a total of $1,019,646 of this amount on reserve, leaving $1,807,081 available for 
expenditure. 

2. In a letter to the Finance Committee dated October 24, 2000, the Director of 
Health, Dr. Mitchell Katz attributed high overtime spending at SFGH through 
the first 7.5 pay periods of FY 2000-01 to the following: 

• A high number of position vacancies requiring existing employees to work 
overtime. 

• A high number of patients treated at SFGH during the first quarter of FY 
2000-01, which required additional staffing in part supplied through 
overtime. 

• Delays in implementing the contract to manage pharmacy benefits has 
resulted in the additional use of Civil Service pharmacy staff. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

85 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

3. The Controller's latest projection report for salary and fringe benefit 
expenditures (including overtime) shows that as of the pay period ending 
October 13, 2000, SFGH has incurred General Fund overtime expenditures of 
$1,726,449. Therefore, through mid-October of 2000 (or 7.5 of 26.0 pay periods in 
FY 2000-01) SFGH has already expended 61.1 percent of its total overtime 
appropriation of $2,826,727, and 95.5 percent of its available, unreserved 
overtime funding of $1,807,081. 

The Controller's projection report shows that, based on overtime expenditures 
for the pay period ending October 13, 2000, SFGH will spend a total of 
$5,561,620 on overtime during FY 2000-01, which is 97 percent, or $2,734,893, 
more than the hospital's total FY 2000-01 overtime appropriation of $2,826,727. 
However, DPH currently projects that overtime spending for SFGH will decrease 
over the remaining pay periods of the Fiscal Year, thus resulting in a total 
overtime deficit of approximately $1,478,789 (see No. 4 below). 

4. Ms. Monique Zmuda, Chief Financial Officer of DPH, estimates that SFGH will 
end FY 2000-01 with overtime expenditures of approximately $4,305,516, 
creating a deficit of approximately $1,478,789. DPH's estimated FY 2000-01 
overtime deficit of $1,478,789 for SFGH is approximately $1,256,104 less than 
the Controller's estimated deficit of $2,734,893 because DPH expects overtime 
spending to decrease as the Department continues filling vacant positions and 
decreases its use of pharmacy Civil Service staff, as stated in the Attachment 
provided by DPH. 

5. Based on all salary and fringe benefit expenditures (including overtime) incurred 
during the pay period ending October 13, 2000, the Controller's projections show 
that SFGH will spend a total of $187,384,850 during FY 2000-01, which is 0.93 
percent, or $1,736,194, more than the hospital's total FY 2000-01 appropriation 
for salaries and fringe benefits of $185,648,656. 

6. According to Ms. Zmuda, based on an analysis of first quarter revenue and 
expenditures, DPH expects SFGH to end FY 2000-01 with a balanced budget. 
DPH does not anticipate a need for a supplemental appropriation for additional 
General Funds in the current year to augment expenditures at the hospital. Mr. 
Matthew Hymel, Chief Assistant Controller, informs the Budget Analyst that he 
has reviewed the FY 2000-01 SFGH spending projections and concurs that, 
based on revenue and expenditure assumptions developed by DPH for the 
remainder of the fiscal year, DPH will be able to absorb deficit expenditures for 
overtime and will not require a supplemental appropriation. 

7. At the current rate of overtime spending and based on the Controller's 
projections for the pay period ending October 13, 2000, SFGH was to exceed the 
$1,807,081 available in unreserved overtime appropriation during the pay period 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

86 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

ending October 27, 2000. Using the same rate of spending, SFGH will exceed its 
total overtime appropriation of $2,826,727 by January of 2000. Therefore, 
SFGH's entire FY 2000-2001 budgeted overtime funds will be spent with 
approximately six months of the fiscal year still remaining (January of 2000 
through June of 2001). 



Laguna Honda Hospital (LHH) 

1. DPH's approved FY 2000-01 General Fund budget for LHH includes budgeted 
overtime expenditures of $236,452. The Finance and Labor Committee placed a 
total of $78,817 of this amount on reserve, leaving $157,635 available for 
expenditure. 

2. In a letter to the Finance Committee dated October 24, 2000, Dr. Katz attributed 
high overtime spending at LHH through the first 7.5 pay periods of FY 2000-01 
to the following: 

• A high number of position vacancies requiring existing employees to work 
overtime. 

• Overtime has been used to allow existing employees to train those new 
employees that have been hired. 

• Overtime was used to backfill regular hours for staff responsible for 
preparing Laguna Honda's annual licensing survey conducted September 11, 
2000. 

3. The Controller's latest projection report for salary and fringe benefit 
expenditures (including overtime) shows that as of the pay period ending 
October 13, 2000, LHH has incurred General Fund overtime expenditures of 
$1,131,726. Therefore, through mid-October of 2000 (or 7.5 of 26.0 pay periods in 
FY 2000-01) LHH had already exceeded its total overtime appropriation of 
$236,452 by $895,274, or 379 percent. 

The Controller's projection report shows that, based on overtime expenditures 
for the pay period ending October 13, 2000, LHH will spend a total of $2,998,537 
on overtime during FY 2000-01, which is $2,762,085, or 1,168 percent, more than 
the hospitals' total FY 2000-01 overtime appropriation of $236,452. However, 
DPH currently projects that overtime spending for LHH will decrease over the 
remaining pay periods of the Fiscal Year, thus resulting in a total overtime 
deficit of approximately $1,800,000 (see No. 4 below). 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

87 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

4. Ms. Zmuda estimates that LHH will end FY 2000-01 with overtime expenditures 
of approximately $2,036,452, creating a deficit of approximately $1,800,000 over 
the budgeted overtime amount of $236,452. DPH's estimated FY 2000-01 
overtime deficit of $1,800,000 for LHH is approximately $1,198,537 less than the 
Controller's estimated deficit of $2,998,537 because DPH expects overtime 
spending at LHH to decrease as the Department has developed a detailed plan 
to monitor and control overtime use during the fiscal year, as stated in the 
Attachment provided by DPH. According to DPH, this plan includes a revised 
hiring plan, biweekly monitoring of overtime uses and a review of workers 
compensation issues. 

5. Based on all salary and fringe benefit expenditures (including overtime) incurred 
during the pay period ending October 13, 2000, the Controller's projections show 
that LHH will spend a total of $109,604,437 during FY 2000-01, which is 
$273,831, or 0.25 percent, less than the hospital's total FY 2000-01 appropriation 
for salaries and fringe benefits of $109,878,268. 

6. According to Ms. Zmuda, based on an analysis of first quarter revenue and 
expenditures, DPH expects LHH to end FY 2000-01 with a balanced budget. 
DPH does not anticipate a need for a supplemental appropriation for additional 
General Funds in the current year to augment expenditures at the hospital 
because the projected deficit of $1,800,000 in overtime expenditures will be 
funded by other salary savings, according to Ms. Zmuda. 

7. According to Ms. Zmuda, LHH exceeded the $157,635 available in unreserved 
overtime appropriation during the pay period ending July 21, 2000, and 
exceeded its total overtime appropriation of $236,452 during the pay period 
ending August 4, 2000. Therefore, LHH spent its entire FY 2000-2001 budgeted 
overtime funds with eleven months of the fiscal year still remaining (August of 
2000 through June of 2001). 



Recommendation: Approval of the proposed release of reserved funds is a policy 
matter for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

88 



City and County of San Francisco 




Attachments Page 1 of 3 

Department of Public Health 

Mitchell H. Katz, MD 
Director of Health 



MEMORANDUM 



Dale: October 24, 2000 

To : The Honorable Inland Y. Yee, PhD. 

Chair, Finance and Labor Committee 

From: Mitchell R Kate, MD. 

Director of Health 

Subject: FY 00-01 Funds Held on Reserve - Overtime 



Recommended Action 

The Department of Public Health is requesting release of $1,098,463 of FY 00-01 funds held on 

reserve for overtime for San Francisco General Hospital and Laguna Honda HosphaL 

Background 

During the budget hearings in June, the Finance Committee placed one third of the overtime 

budget for SFGH and LHH on reserve. 

Analysis/Reason for Recommendation 

Overtime expenditures in the Co mmunit y Health Network, for FY 00-0 1 are projected to exceed 
the budget. Overtime expenditures at SFGH are projected to be 5737,000 over the overtime 
budget of S2.8 million. Overtime projections at LHH are projected to be SI .8 million over the 
budget This level of overtime expenditures is consistent with overtime use for the Community 
Health Network last fiscal year. Over expenditures in overtime are expected to be offset by 
savings in other salary accounts. Total personnel expenditures are projected to be within budget 
this year, as was the case last year. 

Overtime Expenditures at SFGH and Laguna Honda Hospital are as follows: 



Program 


Overtime Budget 1 Expenditures as 
for FY 00-01 of S*ept 30, 2000 


Annualized 

Estimated 
Overtime 


Variance 


SFGH 2,826.727 1,435,173 4,305,516 


(1.478,779) 


LHH 236,452 1 911,654 1 2,036,452 


(1,800.000) 



(415) 554-2600 



1 01 Grove Street 



San Francisco, CA 941 02- 
4593 



89 



Attachment 
Page 2 or 3 



incrc ore a number of facmrs airecting overtime use m the two hospiiais. mese facers include: 

• SFGH has exnericaccti high tffm'rnr c— tsus in the first pan of the fiscai yea- T*rri<; ha<? 
required additional patimr care staff that has been provided, in pan, with overtime hours. 
In. addition, delays in imple-iig_ m'rg die pharmacy benefits nwmgmp-ff camrac: has 
resulted in additional use of crvii service pharmacy staff. Finally, a high number of 
posinon vacancies have reauired overtime use. 

• LHH has a high riumbcr of vacant petitions thai have resulted in hizh ovcrdme use. -j. 
the beginning of the fiscal year there were 160 vacant positions comDared to budgr ri 
salary savings of 92 FTFs. In mid- July <tS p osirirm s were approved for rririno however, 
new hires require a two week or longer training period Overtime has been, used to 
provide patient care during this training period until Lagtma PTnnHa fTik vacant oositions. 
In addition, overtime use in the begmning of the fiscal year was hi ghtr than acrmai as a 
result of the annual licensing survey conduced September 11. Overtime hoars were used 
to backfill regular hours for staff preparing for the licensing survev. 

Fiscal Implications 

San Francisco General Hospital 

SFGH expects that overtime use will slow during the remainder of the fiscal year as a result of 
increased hiring, lower use of pharmacy civil service staff and management of personnel 
expenses in departmems that have incurred high overtime use in the first part of the fiscal year. 

SFGK wiil be filling a number of vacant positions that were frozen last fiscal year due to larsc 
revenue deficits. SFGH started the fiscal year with over 300 vacant positions. Tms is 
signincantiy above the salary savings goal of 245 positions. Additional hiring of permanent crvu 
service surf will reduce overtime that has been used to harVfiil position vacancies. 

Overtime use is also expected to decline for pharmacy operations. Implementation of the 
pharmacy benefits management contract (scheduled to begin in November 'CO) wii] reduce the 
nee a for civil service pharmacy staff as utilization of the SFGH outpatient Dharrnacv shifts to 
neighborhood Dharmacies. 

In addition, in departments mat have high overtime cse in the first part of the fiscal vear, cither 
aoduaonal budgeted positions will be held vacant or hiring wiU be slowed until Dcrsannei 
expenses are within budgeted levels. 

Finally, it should be noted that SFGH uses temporary salaries and overtime to resoend to 
increased patient census. While census has been higher than expected in the first nan of the fiscal 
year, lluctuarions in patient census tend to average out anring the fiscal year. Patient census is 
expected to decline until the winter months, thai arc traditionally the period of hishest natient 
census. 



90 



Attachment 
Page 2 o£ 3 



Laguna Honda Hospital 

Laguna Honda Hosnrtai has develoDed a derailed plan to monitor and control overtime use 
during the fiscal year. This plan irH'"^ a revised hiring plan, biweekly monhariog of overtime 
use and review of workers conip issnes. 

LKH currently has a hiring plan. The hirirg plan will place a priority on filling vacam positions 
that are currently being back -Sle d with overtime- In addition, LHK staff will work on 
improvements in the requisition process to prevent delays and to expedite hiring when positions 
become vacant. 

LHK will implement biweekly review of overtime use for each division at the hospital. This 
review will include an analysis of overtime use and a plan to reduce overtime hours. C^crnmc 
use will be reviewed by the LKH Executive Committee. 

LHH will assign a nurse manager to develop improved workers comp remm-to-work proerams 
to reduce time off for workers comp claims and the subsequent use of overtime to backfill 
position vacancies. In addition, new equipment to reduce injuries is being piloted at the hosoital. 

The personnel budget at LHH will be closely monitored throughout the fiscal year. Adjustments 
to the hiring plan will be made to meet clinical demand, to rmhuirdze overtime use and to brin<* 
expenditures within budgeted levels. 

Thank you for your consideration of this request. If you have any questions, please call Moniaue 
Zmuda, Chief Financial Officer, at 554-2610. 



Attachment 



Gloria Young, Clerk of the Board 
Ken Jensen 
Nancv Araia 



91 

70TPL =.2c 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Item 10 - File 00-1899 



Departments: 



Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 



Description: 



Department of Telecommunications and Information 

Services (DTIS) 

Department of Administrative Services (DAS) 

Hearing to consider the release of $892,475 in reserved 
funds for two capital improvements to the Moscone 
Convention Center South which comprise (a) the release 
of $409,475 to fund the replacement of Security Room 
equipment, and (b) the release of $483,000 to fund the 
upgrading of audio-visual equipment for the three 
Gateway Ballrooms. 

$892,475 

1994 Moscone Lease Revenue Bonds and 1994 San 
Francisco Redevelopment Agency Hotel Tax Revenue 
Bonds in the amount of $32,117,349 were appropriated, 
and $22,973,795 was placed on reserve, by the Board of 
Supervisors in April of 1995 for Moscone Convention 
Center capital improvements. According to Mr. Leonard 
Tom of DAS, $19,703,204 of the original reserve of 
$22,973,795 remains on reserve 1 . Therefore, the subject 
release of $892,475 would further reduce the original 
reserve to $18,810,729. 

In April of 1995, the Board of Supervisors appropriated 
$32,117,349 in Bond revenues and placed $22,973,795 on 
reserve to fund various capital improvement projects for 
the Moscone Convention Center. At that time, 
contractors had not yet been selected and detailed 
budgets had not yet been prepared which fully identified 
the use of those funds. Therefore, the Board of 
Supervisors placed the entire $22,973,795 on reserve 
pending the submission of finalized cost details, selection 
of contractors, and contract cost details. 



1 According to Mr. Tom, the following funds have been released by the Board of Supervisors from the 
$22,973,795 reserve: $679,500 for developing bid specifications and architectural drawings for 
capital improvement projects (1995); $165,300 for capital improvement projects (February of 1996); 
$778,277 for five capital improvement projects (December of 1996); and $1,647,514 for two capital 
improvement projects (July of 1997). Cumulatively, these release of reserves total $3,270,591. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

92 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

This subject release of $892,475 in previously reserved 
funds would provide (a) $409,475 to fund the replacement 
of Security Room equipment in Moscone Convention 
Center South, and (b) $483,000 to fund the upgrading of 
audio-visual equipment in the three Gateway Ballrooms 
located in Moscone Convention Center South. 

Budget: The budget for the requested release of $892,475 for 

Moscone Convention Center capital improvements is as 
follows: 



Securitv Equipment Replacement 






Site preparation 


$20,070 




Equipment and installation 


310,606 




Engineering and design 


45.731 




Subtotal- 


$376,407 




Contingency (8.8 percent) 


33,068 




Project total: 




$409,475 


Gateway Ballroom Audio-visual Equipment Upgrade 


231,700 




Equipment and materials 


Transportation 


3,120 




Installation and labor 


136,725 




Engineering and project management 


33,081 




Training and manuals 


6,480 




Programming 


16,560 




Taxes 


21.302 




Subtotal: 


$448,968 




Contingency (7.6 percent) 


34.032 




Project total: 




483.000 


TOTAL: 




$892,475 



Comments: Securitv Equipment Replacement 



1. According to Mr. Tom, the existing Moscone 
Convention Center South Security Control Room has (a) 
outdated equipment which is between 10 and 20 years 
old, and (b) insufficient space in its current configuration 
to support the security control needs of the Moscone 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

93 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Convention Center West addition which is currently 
under construction. The proposed release of $409,475 
would fund (a) the demolition and replacement of the 
outdated Security Control Room's equipment and fittings, 
(b) full equipment documentation and training manuals, 
and (c) a 12-month equipment warranty. 

2. Mr. Tom states that contractor selection would be 
managed by the City Purchaser through a public bid 
process. Since the funds appropriated for capital 
improvement projects at the Moscone Convention Center 
were originally reserved because contractors had not yet 
been selected and detailed budgets had not yet been 
prepared which fully identified the use of those funds, the 
Budget Analyst recommends that the subject $409,475 
continue to reserved, pending selection of the contractor 
and provision of related cost details. 

Gateway Ballroom Audio-visual Equipment 
Upgrade 

3. Rooms 102, 103, and 104 of the Moscone Convention 
Center South comprise the three Gateway Ballrooms 
which are used for a wide variety of events. According to 
Mr. Tom, none of the three rooms currently have 
dedicated audio-visual capability and users must 
temporarily install their own systems for an event. The 
proposed release of $483,000 would fund (a) the purchase 
and installation of new audio-visual, intercom, and 
assistive listening 2 systems, (b) integration of the new 
systems with other audio-visual systems in the Moscone 
Center South, (c) quality control, system acceptance tests, 
clean-up, and repair, (d) owner training, and (e) a 12- 
month equipment warranty. 

4. Mr. Tom states that DTIS has an existing service 
contract with Siemens Enterprise Networks, LLC, for all 
communications work required by the City. DTIS 
selected Siemens Enterprise Networks on a competitive 
basis. Siemens Enterprise Networks has submitted a bid 
in the amount of $448,968 for completing the requested 
work. In addition, a contingency of $34,032 was provided 



2 Assistive listening systems are designed to help the hearing impaired. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

94 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

whicb results in a total estimated project cost of $483,000. 
In response to a question from the Budget Analyst as to 
why consideration was not given to having an additional 
competitive process for installation of this audio-visual 
equipment in the Gateway Ballrooms, Mr. Tom advises 
that Siemens Enterprises Networks (a) was previously 
awarded a contract for City-wide communications work 
through a competitive bid process by DTIS, (b) is licensed 
and capable of performing the required work, and (c) 
would permit the most time-efficient installation of the 
audio-visual equipment. 

5. According to Mr. Tom, DAS will probably seek to 
increase the Gateway Ballroom rental rates to recover 
costs associated with purchasing and installing the new 
audio-visual equipment. According to Mr. Tom, Moscone 
Convention Center rental rates are automatically 
increased every 18 months in line with the Moscone 
Convention Center joint venture contract. These regular 
rental rate increases reflect the cost of improvements to 
the Moscone Convention Center and increases in 
operating costs. 

Recommendations: 1. Continue to reserve $409,475 for the replacement of 

Moscone Convention Center South Security Control Room 
equipment replacement, pending selection of a contractor 
and provision of related cost details. 

2. Release the reserved funds in the amount of $483,000 
for the upgrading of audio-visual equipment in the three 
Gateway Ballrooms. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

95 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Item 11 - File 00-1957 



Department: 
Item: 



Department of Pubbc Health (DPH) 

Resolution authorizing the adoption of the County 
Description of Proposed Expenditure of California 
Healthcare for Indigents Program (CHIP) funds for Fiscal 
Year 2000-01, and authorizing that the President, or duly 
authorized representative of the Board of Supervisors of 
the City and County of San Francisco can certify the 
County Description of Proposed Expenditure of CHIP 
funds for FY 2000-01. 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



$4,826,945 

California Healthcare for Indigents Program (CHIP) 

The State Department of Health Services (DHS) 
established the California Healthcare for Indigents 
Program (CHIP) in 1989 to provide funds to the counties 
to pay for medical services for indigent persons who are 
not eligible for other private or public health care 
programs. CHIP is funded by Proposition 99 (Tobacco 
Tax) money. The counties use CHIP funds to reimburse 
both County and non-County providers for 
uncompensated services for indigent persons who are not 
able to otherwise pay for the cost of such health services. 

CHIP funds are used to reimburse (a) participating 
County and non-County hospitals for inpatient, 
outpatient, and emergency services, and (b) participating 
private physicians for emergency, obstetric, and pediatric 
services, provided to indigent persons. 

State regulations require that the County submit to the 
State, on an annual basis, a description of the County's 
proposed expenditures of the CHIP funds, and that the 
President of the Board of Supervisors, or duly authorized 
representative, certify the subject expenditure 
description. The proposed resolution would authorize the 
County Description of Proposed Expenditure of the 
subject CHIP funds for FY 2000-01. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

96 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Proposed 
Expenditures of 
CHIP Funds: 



The aUocation of the CHIP funds for FY 2000-01 is as 
follows: 



County Hospital Fund 
Non- County Hospital Fund 
Physician Services Fund 
Other Health Services Fund 
Total CHIP Funds 



$3,782,498 
300,870 
222,060 
521.517 

$4,826,945 



Comments: 



1. As shown in the Attachment provided by the DPH, the 
CHIP allocation by each Fund noted above, is as follows: 

County Hospital Funds 

DPH has allocated $3,782,498 in County Hospital Funds 
for indigent services at San Francisco General Hospital 
(SFGH), including administrative costs, and the Child 
Health and Disability Prevention (CHDP) services at 
SFGH. 



SFGH Services 

CHDP Services 

DPH Administrative Costs 

Total County Hospital Fund 

Non-County Hospital Fund 



$3,253,866 
106,351 
422,281 

$3,782,498 



DPH has allocated $300,870 to the Non-County Hospital 
Fund, including $150,435, or 50 percent, to 6 local non- 
County hospitals (California Pacific Medical Center, 
Chinese Hospital, University of California at San 
Francisco Medical Center, St. Francis Hospital, St. Luke's 
Hospital, and St. Mary's Hospital), based on the State's 
mandated formula, and $150,435, or 50 percent, to 
reimburse these local non-County hospitals on a 
discretionary basis. 



State-mandated Funds 

Discretionary Funds 
Hospital Reimbursement 133,887 

Professional Services Contract* 16.548 



$150,435 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

97 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Subtotal Discretionary Funds 150,435 

Total Non-County Hospital Fund $300,870 

* Mr. Jeffrey Leong of DPH states that DPH has an 
existing professional services contract with Lifemark, 
Incorporated, to process medical claims for 
reimbursement from private hospitals and physicians. 

Physician Services Fund 

DPH has allocated $222,060 to the Physician Services 
Fund, including $111,030, or 50 percent, to Emergency 
Medical Services (EMS), and $111,030, or 50 percent for 
new contracts. 



Emergency Medical Services 






EMS 


$ 99,927 




Professional Services Contract 


11.103 




Subtotal EMS 




111,030 


New Contracts 






EMS 


11,781 




Child Health and Disability 


88,146 




Prevention (CHDP) 






Professional Services Contract 


11.103 




Subtotal New Contracts 




111.030 


Total Physician Services Fund 




$222,060 


Other Health Services Fund 







DPH has allocated $521,517 for other health services, 
including reimbursements for indigent services at SFGH 
and Child Health and Disability Prevention (CHDP) 
services at SFGH, and administrative costs. 



SFGH 


$362,145 


CHDP 


106 


DPH Administrative Costs 


58,223 


Professional Services Contract 


101.043 


Total Other Health Services Fund 


$521,517 



2. In August of 2000, the Board of Supervisors authorized 
DPH to accept and expend up to $4,846,670 in CHIP 
funds (File 00-1478). According to Mr. Leong, the final 
total State allocation is $4,826,945, the amount to be 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

98 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



certified to the State under the proposed subject 
resolution. 

3. The Board of Supervisors approved the total CHIP fund 
expenditure of $4,865,429 in the DPH FY 2000-01 budget. 
The actual amount of $4,826,945 allocated by the State in 
FY 2000-01 is $38,484, or approximately 0.8 percent, less 
than the budgeted amount of $4,865,429. Mr. Leong 
states that the reduction in the State allocation of CHIP 
funds resulted from changes in the California FY 2000-01 
budget that diverted Tobacco Tax funds away from the 
CHIP-funded County services to fund other State health 
programs. Mr. Leong advises that this change in the 
CHIP allocation to the County will be offset by a change 
in the amount budgeted for CHIP programs and will not 
result in an increased General Fund contribution. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

99 



Attachment 
Page 1 ot 6 

County of San Francisco 

2000-01 Description of Proposed Expenditure of CHIP/RHS Program Funds 

HOSPITAL SERVICES FUND DETAIL SHEET 

COUNTY HOSPITAL FUNDS 

Revenue 

County Hospital Allocation „ s 3,782,498 

Interest Carryover from Prior Year % 

Projected Interest for FY 2000-01 S 

Total S 3 ' 782 ' 498 

Appropriations for Services by Budget Unit 

Budget Unit fi HGHCHIP-SVCS Title SFGH 3,253,866 

Budget Unit # Title 

Budget Unit# TiflbJ 

Budget Unit # Title 

Budget Unit # Title ' 

Budget Unit S Title 

Budget UnitS Title 

Budget Unit #. Title 

Budget Unit # Title 

Budget Unit#. Title 

Budget UnitS Title 

Budget UnitS. Title 

Appropriations for Administrative Costs by Budget Unit 

Budget Unit S HCHCHIPADMIN Titl e CHS ^______ 369,076 

Budget Unit SHCHCHIPADMIN Titl e CHS (overhead) 53,205 

Budget Units Title 

Appropriations for CHDP Treatment Services by Budget Unit 

Budget Unit SHGHCHIP-SVCS Titl e SFGH 106,351 

Budget UnitS Title ; 

Budget UnitS Title 

Total .$ 3,782,498 

Unexpended interest will be returned to the State unless legislation extends 
the CHIP/RHS funding. 

15 

100 



Page 2 of 6 

County of San Francisco 

2000-01 Description of Proposed Expenditure of CHTP/RHS Program Funds 

HOSPITAL SERVICES FUND DETAIL SHEET 

NONCOUNTY HOSPITAL FORMULA FUNDS 
Revenue 

Noncounty Hospital Formula Allocation $ 150 ' 435 

Interest Carryover from Prior Year .$ 

Projected Interest for FY 2000-01 $ 



Total ; 5 150,435 

Appropriations for Services by Budget Unit 

Budget Unit # HCBCHIP-SVCS Titl e Medical Svcs. Cts. 150,435 

Budget Unit # Title ; 

Budget Unit # Title 

Budget Unit # Title 

Budget Unit # Titl e 

Budget Unit # Title 

Budget Unit # Title \ 

Budget Unit # : Title 

Budget Unit # Title 

Budget Unit #_ Title ; 

Budget Unit # Title 

Budget Unit # Title 

Budget Unit # Title 

Budget Unit # Title 

Budget Unit # Title 

Budget Unit # Title 

Budget Unit # Title 

Budget Unit # Title 

Budget Unit # Title 



T 0ta l \ g 150,435 

Unexpended" interest' 'will" 'be'" returned'' to " "the ' State unless iVgisxation 
extends the CHIP/RHS funding. 

16 

101 



Attachment 
Page 3 ot 6 

County of San Francisco 

2000-01 Description of Proposed Expenditure of CHTP/RHS Program Funds 

HOSPITAL SERVICES FUND DETAIL SHEET 

NONCOUNTY HOSPITAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDS 
Revenue 

Noncounty Hospital Discretionary Allocation $ 150 ,435 

Interest Carryover from Prior Year S 

Projected Interest for FY 2000-01 S 



Total $ 150,435 

Appropriations for Services by Budget Unit 

Budget Unit # HCHCHIP-SVCS Title Medical Svcs. Cts. 133.887 

Budget Unit # Title 

Budget Unit # Title 

Budget Unit # Title 

Budget Unit # Title 

Budget Unit # Title 

Budget Unit # Title 

Budget Unit # Title 

Budget Unit # Title 

Budget Unit # Title 

Budget Unit # Title 

Budget Unit # Title 

Appropriations for Administrative Costs by Budget Unit 

Budget Unit# HCHCHIP-SVCS Titl e Professional Svcs. 16,548 

Budget Unit # Title 

Budget Unit # Title 

Appropriations for CHDP Treatment Services by Budget Unit 

Budget Unit # Title 

Budget Unit # Title 

Budget Unit # Title 



Total $ 150,435 

Unexpended interest will be returned to the State unless legislation " 
extends the CHIP/RH9 funding. 

17 
102 



Page h of 6 

County of San Francisco 

2000-01 Description of Proposed Expenditure of CHQVRHS Program Funds 

PHYSICIAN SERVICES FUND DETAIL SHEET 

PHYSICIAN SERVICES - EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES (EMS) FUNDS 
Revenue 

Physician Services - EMS Allocation $ 1 1 1 , Q 3 Q 

Interest Carryover from Prior Year $__ 

Projected Interest for FY 2000-01 $ - 



Total $ 111>030 

Appropriations for Services by Budget Unit 

Budget Unit #HCHCHIP-SVCS Title Medical Svcs. Cts. 99,927 

Budget Unit # Title 

Budget Unit #; Title 

Budget Unit # Title 

Budget Unit # Title [ 

Budget Unit # Title „__ 

Budget Unit # Title 

Budget Unit # Title 

Budget Unit # Title . 

Budget Unit # Title _______ 

Budget Unit # Title . 

Budget Unit # Title , 

Budget Unit # Title 

Budget Unit # Title _______ 

Budget Unit # Title , 

Budget Unit # Title 



Appropriations for Administrative Costs by Budget Unit (not to exceed 10% of the Physician Services Account) 

Budget Unit # HCHCHIP-SVCS Titl e Professional Svcs. 11 , 103 

Budget Unit # Title 



Total $ 111,030 

Unexpended interest will be returned to the State unless legislation 
extends the CHIP/RHS funding. 

18 



103 



Attachment 
Page b ot 6 

County of San Francisco 

2000-01 Description of Proposed Expenditure of CHIP/RHS Program Funds 
PHYSICIAN SERVICES FUND DETAIL SHEET 

PHYSICIAN SERVICES - NEW CONTRACT FUNDS 
Revenue 

Physician Services - New Contract Allocation S__LLLl2_^2_ 

(Not to exceed 50% of the total Physician's Services Account on Table 1 for CHIP counties) 

Interest Carryover from Prior Year •$__ 

Projected Interest for FY 2000-01 $ 



Total S HI/030 

Appropriations for Obstetric Services by Budget Unit 

Budget Unit tt Title . 

Budget Unit # Title 

Appropriations for Pediatric Services by Budget Unit 

Budget Unit # Title 

Budget Unit U Title 

Budget Unit # Title 

Budget Unit # Title 

Appropriations for Emergency Services by Budget Unit 

Budget Unit # HCHCHIP-SVCS j^ Medical Svcs. Cts. 11,781 

Budget Unit # Title 

Budget Unit # Title 

Budget Unit # Title 

Appropriations for CHDP Treatment Services by Budget Unit 

Budget Unit #HCHCHTP-SVCS Titl e Medical Svcs. CtS . 66,146 

Budget Unit #_ Title 

Appropriations for Administrative Costs by Budget Unit 

Budget Unit # HCHCHIP-SVCS Titl e Professional Svcs. 11 , 103 

Budget Unit # Title 

Budget Unit # Title 



Total S ^ 111,030 

Unexpended interest will be returned to- the State unless legislation 
extends the CHIP/RHS funding. 

19 

104 



Page 6 of 6 

County of San Francisco 

2000-01 Description of Proposed Expenditure of CHIP/RHS Program Funds 

OTHER HEALTH SERVICES FUND DETAIL SHEET 

Revenue 

Other Health Services Allocation $ 52l y 517 

Interest Carryover from Prior Year $ 

Projected Interest for FY 2000-01 $ 



Total , S 521, 5J7 

Appropriations for Services by Budget Unit 

Budget Unit #HCHCHIP-SVCS Titl e SFGH 362,145 

Budget Unit # Title [ _ 

Budget Unit # ; Title _ 

Budget Unit # Title 

Budget Unit # Title 

Budget Unit # Title 

Budget Unit # , Title 

Budget Unit # Title \ 

Budget Unit # Title . 

Appropriations for Administrative Costs by Budget Unit 

Budget Unit #HCHCHIP-SVCS Titl e Professional Svcs. 101,043 

Budget Unit #HCHCHIP-APMIN Titl e CHS (overhead) . 7,336 

Budget Unit #HCHCHIP-ADMIN Titl c c * s 50,887 

Appropriations for Equipment by Budget Unit 

Budget Unit # Title 

Budget Unit #. Title 

Budget Unit # Title 

Appropriations for CHDP Treatment Services by Budget Unit 

Budget Unit # hghchip-svcs Titl e SFGH 106 

Budget Unit # Title 

Budget Unit # Title 

Total S 521,517 

Unexpended interest will be raturned to the State unle B s legislation 
extends CHIP/RHS funding. 

20 
105 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Item 12 - File 00-1603 

Note: This item was continued by the Finance and Labor Committee meeting 

of September 27, 2000. 



Department: 
Item: 



Contract Term: 



Airport 

Ordinance authorizing the Airport Commission to approve 
the continuation of a contract with the Shuttleport/DAJA 
SFO Joint Venture to operate the Airport Curbside 
Management Program for up to four additional one year 
options commencing November 15, 2000. 

The first year extension option would extend the subject 
contract with the Shuttleport/DAJA 1 SFO Joint Venture 
(the Joint Venture) from November 15, 2000 to November 
14, 2001 (12 months). If the three additional one year 
extension options are approved by the Airport 
Commission in the future, the subject contract would be 
extended to November 14, 2004. The original contract did 
not require Board of Supervisors approval. However, 
approval of this one year extension option increases the 
total contract cost over subject contract's first two years to 
more than $10,000,000, which requires Board of 
Supervisors approval under the Charter. Approval of 
future one year extension options would not be subject to 
further Board of Supervisors approval under the subject 
ordinance. 



Amount: 



Projected to be $6,872,885, and not to exceed $6,875,000, 
for the November 15, 2000 to November 14, 2001 period. 
$6,872,885 is an approximately 16.7 percent increase over 
the $5,889,100 contract amount for the previous 12 month 
November 15, 1999 to November 14, 2000 contractual 
period. 

The budget for the November 15, 2000 to November 14, 
2001 period, compared to the previous twelve month 
contractual period, is shown on the following page. 



1 DAJA, Inc. is a registered MBE/WBE firm which is a 40 percent joint venture partner. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

106 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 





Year One 


Year Two 


Increase / 


Percent 


Proiect Cost Summarv 


Budget 


Budget 


(Decrease) 


Increase 


Project Team Staff Labor 


$343,080 


$371,830 


$28,750 


8.4% 


Project Team Staff Labor Benefits 


76,334 


81,610 


5,276 


6.9 % 


Operations Staff Labor 


2,548,142 


3,079,127 


530,985 


20.8 % 


Operations Staff Benefits 


711,074 


1,037,966 


326,892 


46.0 % 


SuperShuttle Subcontract* 1 ' 


465,000 


478,950 


13,950 


3.0 % 


Lorrie's Travel and Tours Subcontract 


385,000 


396,550 


11,550 


3.0 % 


Annual Support Services < 2) 


450,030 


525,209 


75,179 


16.7 % 


Equipment Purchase 


58,100 


7,578 


(50,522) 


(87.0 %) 


Scheduled Annual Operating Costs 


358.659 


317.914 


C40.745) 


(11.4%) 


Total Operating Cost 


5,395,419 


6,296,734 


901,315 


16.7 % 


Fee' 3 ' 


493.681 


576.151 


82.470 


16.7 % 


TOTAL CONTRACT COST 


$5,889,100 


$6,872,885 


$983,785 


16.7 % 



Notes: 



W Subcontracts: The Joint Venture has subcontracted with Lorrie's Travel and Tours and 
SuperShuttle to operate portions of the door-to-door van curb coordination. 

(2 > Annual Support Services: These comprise fees and costs for Controller services, external 
auditors, legal advisors, occupational safety and health services, human resources services, 
environmental services, financing costs, information services, operational support services, risk 
management, labor relations, and logistics and engineering support services. In Years One and 
Two, these were calculated at approximately 8.3 percent of the total operating cost excluding 
profit. 

(3 > Fee: Under the terms of the subject contract, the profit margin for the Joint Venture is 
calculated at approximately 9.1 percent of the total operating cost in Years One and Two. 



Source of Funds: 



Airport revenues generated by ground transportation 
operators wbicb pay fees to operate on Airport premises. 
Attachment I, provided by Mr. Dan Wong of the Airport, 
identifies the sources of the fees which will be paid to the 
Airport by ground transportation operators between 
November 15, 2000, and November 14, 2001 and used to 
fund the Airport Curbside Management Program. 
According to Mr. Wong, although the Year Two contract 
budget is projected to be $6,872,885, orly $5,888,000 in 
ground transportation operator fee revenue (which is 
equivalent to the approximate budgeted funding for Year 
One of the contract) would need to be allocated to the 
subject Year Two contract. According to Mr. Wong, this is 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

107 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

because the phased implementation of the Airport 
Curbside Management Program during Year One (see 
"Description" below) is projected to result in 
approximately $1,300,000 of under-expenditure against 
the Year One budget which had been determined on the 
basis of Joint Venture provision of full program services 
from Day One of the contract. The unexpended funds can 
be carried forward to fund the balance of the projected 
Year Two budget of $6,872,885. 

Description: On September 21, 1999, the Airport Commission awarded 

a $5,889,100 contract for the first time to operate the 
Airport Curbside Management Program at all Airport 
terminals, including the new International Terminal. The 
Airport Commission awarded the contract to the Joint 
Venture for one year effective November 15, 1999, 
extendable for up to four additional one-year extension 
options. As previously noted, since the contract was for 
less than $10,000,000, the original contract was not 
subject to Board of Supervisors approval. 

The Airport Curbside Management Program is designed 
to improve the quality of the Airport's ground 
transportation services. The program consolidates: 

• The Airport's taxi dispatching functions previously 
operated by AMPCO System Parking. The Joint 
Venture took over the Airport's taxi dispatching 
functions on March 1, 2000. 

• The Airport's door-to-door van curb coordination 
functions operated by three separate operating groups, 
Lome's Travel and Tours, SuperShuttle, and 
Transportation Coordinators of America. The Joint 
Venture took over the door-to-door van curb 
coordination functions on April 15, 2000. 

• Customer services for the Airport's private scheduled 
transit and limousine operators. This is a new 
function required by the subject contract. The Joint 
Venture commenced private scheduled transit and 
limousine customer service operations on May 27, 
2000. For the Airport's private scheduled transit 
operators, Joint Venture staff monitor schedule 
adherence and transit activities at the curb, answer 
customer questions, and measure ridership. For 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

108 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



limousine operators, Joint Venture staff monitor the 
loading zones, answer customer questions, and check 
waybills 2 . 

In addition, Mr. Wong states that all Airport Curbside 
Management Program employees, whether line, 
supervisory, or management staff, are required to report 
incidents of solicitation and other illegal activity at the 
Airport to Airport staff and the San Francisco Police 
Department. 

To perform these functions, the Joint Venture employs 
approximately 110 staff. Under the subject contract 
extension, all employees would be provided with medical 
benefits and remunerated at or above the levels required 
by the City's Minimum Compensation Ordinance (see 
Comment No. 2). 

As previously noted, the Airport approved a contract for 
its Airport Curbside Management Program on September 
21, 1999. Attachment II, provided by Mr. Wong, explains 
what Airport ground transportation deficiencies the 
subject contract is intended to address since such a 
contract had never previously been implemented at the 
Airport. According to Mr. Wong, based on the 
performance of services for which the Joint Venture has 
progressively assumed responsibility over the last seven 
months, the Airport Commission concluded that the 
Airport Curbside Management Program has improved 
Airport ground transportation providers' service and 
better managed the Airport's limited curbside loading 
zones in the following ways: 

• Increased monitoring of all ground transportation 
functions has provided Airport staff and ground 
transportation operators with additional information 
to ensure that ground transportation services conform 
to the terms of each operator's Airport Operating 
Permit. 



2 According to Mr. Wong, a waybill is a document which limousine operators are required to 
complete for each pre-arranged pick-up, as required by the California Public Utilities Commission 
(for audit purposes) and the Airport (for verification of pre-arranged pick-ups and drop-offs). 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

109 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

• Increased monitoring has reduced the potential for 
illegal solicitation activities at the various loading 
zones. 

• Increased staffing of individual loading zones has 
increased throughput of ground transportation 
vehicles by better managing traffic volumes. 

• Increased customer service means that the traveling 
public can receive answers to ground transportation 
and other Airport questions from staff who are 
independent of the ground transportation operators, 
and late night arriving passengers can access 
transportation information more easily. 

On August 29, 2000, the Airport Commission exercised 
the first one year extension option to allow the Joint 
Venture to continue operating the Airport Curbside 
Management Program for a second year effective 
November 15, 2000. Approval of this one year extension 
increases the total contract cost over its first two years to 
$12,761,985. Since that amount is more than 
$10,000,000, Board of Supervisors approval is required 
under the Charter. 

Comments: 1. The initial contract was awarded to the Joint Venture 

after a Request for Proposals (RFP) process which is 
described in the attached memorandum from Mr. Wong 
(Attachment III). According to Mr. Wong, the RFP 
provides for the longer term expansion of the Airport 
Curbside Management Program to include potential 
creation and staffing of passenger waiting lounges and 
Airport terminal ground transportation ticketing 
operations. 

2. According to Mr. Wong, the $983,785, or 
approximately 16.7 percent, increase in the contract cost 
between Year One and Year Two reflects the following 
changes: 

• Staffing enhancements and pay raises, including pay 
raises to comply with the Minimum Compensation 
Ordinance, increased by $559,735. According to Mr. 
Wong, of this $559,735 increase, $42,640 is required to 
comply with the Minimum Compensation Ordinance 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

110 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



while other pay raises are due to collective bargaining 
agreements. 

• Employee benefits increased by $332,168. 

• Equipment leases and purchases, and project costs 
reduced by $91,267. 

• Service subcontracts increased by $25,500. 

• Annual support services increased by $75,179. 

• Under the terms of the contract, the fee amount 
increased by $82,470. 

A break-down of the above figures is contained in 
Attachment IV. 

However, the Budget Analyst notes that the Program's 
projected Year One under-expenditure of $1,300,000 
would reduce the Year One budget of $5,889,100 to 
$4,589,100. The Year Two budget of $6,872,885 would 
therefore represent an approximately 49.8 percent 
increase over Year One projected expenditures. This is 
significantly greater than the 16.7 percent increase 
explained above. According to Mr. Wong, the balance of 
the increase (a projected $1,300,000) is the result of the 
expenditure difference between the phased 
implementation of services in Year One and the provision 
of the full range of services for the entire Year Two period. 

3. When the subject resolution was heard by the Finance 
and Labor Committee at its September 27, 2000 meeting, 
the Budget Analyst noted that the Airport was seeking 
approval to extend the subject contract by up to four years 
without the benefit of performance measures which would 
assess the impact of the Joint Venture on ground 
transportation services at the Airport. 

In response to that concern, Mr. Wong states that the 
City's contract with the Joint Venture is being amended 
to include the following nine performance measures 
developed by the Joint Venture for the second year of the 
contract. According to Mr. Wong, these performance 
measures would be reviewed periodically and changed as 
conditions warrant. The first five performance measures 
relate to Joint Venture financial and staffing 
management and would not, therefore, directly measure 
the impact of the Airport Curbside Management Program 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

111 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



services. However, the last four performance measures 
would directly measure the actual services provided to 
the traveling public. 

Joint Venture financial and staffing management 

(1) Operate within the maximum budget approved by the 
Airport Commission, with budget evaluations 
prepared jointly by Airport and Joint Venture staff on 
a quarterly basis. 

(2) Reduce employee turnover in the door-to-door van, 
private scheduled transit, and limousine elements of 
the Airport Curbside Management Program by 10 
percent from the current 50 percent to 40 percent. 

(3) Reduce employee overtime due to absenteeism or 
unfilled positions to no more than 5 percent of payroll 
expenditures for all classifications. (According to Mr. 
Wong, the transportation industry average is 7 
percent, and the Joint Venture has experienced up to 
9 percent employee overtime during the initial 
implementation phases of the Airport Curbside 
Management Program in FY 1999-2000.) 

(4) Reduce worker compensation costs by achieving a goal 
of 1.7 lost time accidents per 100,000 paid employee 
hours. According to Mr. Wong, the current rate is 
approximately 1.8 lost time accidents per 100,000 paid 
employee hours. Therefore, a reduction to 1.7 lost 
time accidents per 100,000 paid employee hours would 
be an improvement of approximately 5.6 percent. 

(5) Staff all positions within 30 days of posting job 
announcements. 

Services provided to the traveling public 

(6) Investigate, report on, and respond in writing to all 
customer complaints within one week of receipt of 
such complaints. 

(7) Ensure that taxicab dispatchers approach all patrons 
within one minute of accessing the taxicab loading 
zones, with taxicab service to be provided to patrons 
within 10 minutes. 

(8) Ensure that door-to-door van curb coordinators 
approach all patrons within one minute of accessing 
the door-to-door van loading zones, with door-to-door 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

112 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



van service to be provided to patrons within 15 
minutes. 
(9) Ensure that the private scheduled transit and 
limousine loading zone monitors provide services to 
patrons 100 percent in accordance with published 
schedules (in the case of the Airport's private 
scheduled transit operators) and ensure sole usage of 
limousine loading zones by prearranged limousine 
customers. Mr. Wong notes that the Airport Curbside 
Management Program provides services to the 
Airport's private scheduled transit operators, not to 
public transit operators such as SamTrans. 

The Budget Analyst has requested a memorandum from 
the Airport explaining how performance measures 2, 3, 4, 
and 5 can be enforced and what penalties would be 
applied by the Airport under the contract if these 
performance measures are not met. At the time of 
issuing this report, the Airport had not provided the 
requested information. 

According to Mr. Wong, the revised contract document, 
which will include the above performance measures, is 
currently being reviewed by the City Attorney's Office. 
Mr. Peter Nardoza of the Airport states that the amended 
contract, incorporating the performance measures 
described in Comment No. 3 above, has not yet been 
approved by the Airport Commission. The Budget 
Analyst recommends, therefore, that Board of 
Supervisors consideration of the subject contract 
extension be continued pending approval of the amended 
contract by the Airport Commission. 

4. In addition to assessing the Joint Venture's 
performance against the above nine performance 
measures, Mr. Wong notes the following points: 

• The Airport has the option not to exercise any of the 
three annual contract extension options which would 
remain should the Joint Venture's performance be 
deemed inadequate against the above performance 
measures. However, as previously noted, once the 
Board of Supervisors approves the subject ordinance, 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

113 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

the three annual contract extension options would not 
be subject to Board of Supervisors approval. 

• The Airport also has the right, at its sole discretion, to 
terminate the subject contract for convenience at any 
time. 

• The Program is funded through the fees paid by the 
Airport's ground transportation operators. Therefore, 
according to Mr. Wong, ground transportation 
operators have a strong vested interest in ensuring 
that the Joint Venture actually improves the Airport's 
handling of ground transportation services because 
the operators are the funders of the Joint Venture's 
services. 

5. As the subject ordinance proposes to extend the Joint 
Venture contract by one year from November 15, 2000, 
the subject ordinance should be amended for 
retroactivity. 

6. According to Mr. Wong, San Francisco International 
Airport is the first and, so far, the only airport in the 
United States to design and operate a program 
comparable to the proposed Airport Curbside 
Management Program. According to Mr. Wong, Atlanta, 
Los Angeles, and Phoenix are considering implementing 
comparable programs at their airports, but such 
programs have not yet been implemented at any United 
States airports. 

7. If approved, the total estimated amount of the City's 
contract with the Joint Venture over a full five-year term 
would be at least $32,080,640 assuming that the 
projected Year 2 expenditure of $6,872,885 is repeated for 
Years 3 through 5. 

Recommendations: 1. In accordance with Comment No. 5 above, amend the 
proposed ordinance for retroactivity. 

2. Continue the proposed ordinance as amended until the 
Airport Commission has approved an amended contract 
which incorporates the proposed performance measures 
described in Comment No. 3 above. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

114 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 




Supervisor Yee 
Supervisor Bierman 
President Ammiano 
Clerk of the Board 
Controller 
Steve Kawa 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

115 



SE?. 21*2000 12:55 650 794 6508 



LANDSIDE OPS 



Attachment I 



Curijnd* MagT Pn>e. Cost ARaaOan*-- SY 00/ni 


','■ 


Share of Tries S3. 329 000 


Txd 

TJTTIO 


48.8% 22,273,000 
263% SL550.OOO 


43% J S253.0OO 
2HGkl S131Z0OO 


On^Deuand Vans 

* Based on # of Trips 


100.0% 15,888,000 



116 



SJ?. 21*2000 11:51 650 79* 6508 



LANESIDE OPS 



Attachment II 




San FrancbcD International Airport 



Fax 



Bmtm 

September 22. 200Q 



Naof 

1 




Alan Gibson. Budget Analyst's Office 



Pax Humtar 

415.252.0461 



/baMftfmQ, 



650.821 .6508 
850.821.6512 



Senior Transportation Ptennw 



415.554.7642x233 

c— 1— ii ' — ~~~~- — — — «-^— — 

In regards to specie issues that led to (he Airport to create the Curbside Management Program, they 
include but are not fimited to: 

1. Complaints from the taxicab drivers regarding the existing taxicab service. Specrficafly, they drivers 
wanted a more professional transportation company experienced in taxicab dispatching to conduct the 
operation rather than the Airporf s current public parking operator. 

2. Complaints from various docr-to-door van operators regarding alleged dispatching irregularities. 

3. Complaints from various door-to-docr van operators regarding the apparent lack of censwtant training of 
door-to-door van curb coordinators. 

4. Complaints from the public as to both the quality of the information given by the various dtsuatchers and 
curb coordinators and their customer service demeanor. 

5. Apparent lapses in service being provided by scheduled transit cperaicrs en their Affport-spnroved 
schedules. 

6. The need to further improve the percentage of air passengers using ground transportation services to 
better manage increasing passenger volumes through the Airport 

7. The need to further improve efficiencies in the various ground transportation loading zones by exceditinq 
passenger pickups. 

8. Increasing numbers of operators illegally soliciting passengers at or near ground transportation leading 
zones. 



9. The need to provide quality and comprehensive ground transportsrJcn service during late night hours for 
our customers on delayed arriving Sights. 



The informaaoa conoinea In (TM te — 
Ui» u» at 7k !naMdu»t or «raty MM 3C 
It ID me Iraendad mctUonl. you ara hnov 
roccfw**: ja» iL.uuiiutji_2ui m error. 



■oa. «t tnc cc=mo«nymg doc™**. Is pnwic^M w c=nnaen am. nttcaanM^nanaintansoacnii Xx 

ncttVa gen any i ' l m ii«iiiiii» i . acrmuBon of coymq at 7am canmunoaon ■ m 
vc aumjjuuj r cy iraonara. 550.73< SCOT 



iQOalrvsr 

if you rtavc 



117 



SE?.18'2QQC 13:44 650 79* 6508 LANDSIDE OPS ...... 

Attachment III 




Sui Francbco Intxmsdonal Airport. 

Fax 



rZLSnacrp 

5*n rrancnca. CA 9*1 13 



Septe mber 18, 2300 / ««~./>yiQ£am 

N.Wl 

1 



Alan Gcscn. Budge; Analyst's Cfflca 

415J2S2.0461 6£a82i.s= ca 

415.554.7642x233 




The fallowing is a bnef synopsis of the history erf the Cu/Oside Management Program seiecSon u p —re if 
ycu need additional tafamatoa , please ctec me. 

September A Ccnoer 1398 - Met with the Airport's ground transpcrtaacn operators fa develop a mult-stage 

deployment of a comprehensive curbside managemenl program encompassing docr-to-dcer vans 

limousines, scheduled transit and tafacsD operations. The original concept was recommended by an Airccrt 

ground tamp tattO B consultant r 

December 19S8 - Airport CommissJan approved Resolution SS8-0321 authorizing the Airport to issue an 

RFP far a contractor fa operate the Airports CurpsxJe Management Program. 

March 12. 1999 - Airport staff Issued the RFP. 

April 7. 1999 - Pre-Prcpcsal Ccrrferenca conduced. 

May U. 1999 - 3 proposals were submitted by the due dale (Le.. CDSNet, Ina. Fciarts/TTJvlC Joint 

Venture, and ShirtBePcn/DAJA Joint Venture). 

June 7. 19S9 - Review panel conduced oral interview paneis arte.' reviewing the written submittals of ail * 

three proposers. Scores submitted to HRC far MBE.-WBE rating discounts. 

June 25. 1S99 - HRC submitted fa Airport final scores including MEE/WEE rarino discounts 

ShuttiePort/DAJA was the richest scorer with a cumulaove score of 9? ? out f -joo. 

Juiy 13. 1939 - Airport Commisson approved Resolution 299-0223 authorizing the Airport Director fa 

negotiate a contraCwith ShuCJePcrtfOAJA to operate the Airports Curbside Management Program. 

September21, 1S99 - Airccrt Ccmmisscn accroved Resolution 599-0323 to is3ue a contrac to cperate the 

Airports Curbside Management Program to ShuttJePcri/DAJA. 

November 1. 199S - Cvil Service Ccmmissicn approved said contrsc m Notice of Acicn far Ccntrac 

^079-99/00. 

November 15, 19SS - ContraC with ShutflePortiDAJA became effective far one year with uo to kw 

additicnal one-year options. 

cc; Edwin Leung/AIic3 SgcuraKis/Uzs Rczs-Ttergs/Chron/Fiie 15S 
Peter Nardcza/Eddie Angeies 



3^ use *3letK*«iLatar arett? .'=•0 S8W* ■ 5*e reacts d r^ mm%Mmqmancf2»ltaanoaa ** WMt cr H I — new- -, -«_ 

-. — * *"~f— ^ —>«■■» rev JIS?e — C^"v^?* 

- 5 — '"anew m — cr-r. tou are .'gn^Jr no^«) at »" os^ac^maen. ssrouaen or crsymq c* m cttjtmictkj, h _>-^. . . 

mcasvrc Tn . — rt e — m «ror. p— rcSFf ve smecasm ^r teecnoie. 55aJ"34_Sooa 



118 



^.19-2000 13:40 050 794 0508 WOM. « 

-^ Attachmen t Iv 

_ SMMoop to am m amiBw Fax „ a „ ra M ^si^r^f- 



3mde?art/BAJA/SFO 



kn Francisco IuCarnaCiarml Airport 

10. Box 2504S0 

Uui Pr^ncisco. CA 94125-Q489 

Ktx (S50) 821-2703 


To: 


Dan Wong 


From: 


DemeiBanz 


Date: 


September 19,2000 


Re: 


Budget Increase Analysis 



& 



A3 
one o 



requested. [ have pa together a pags-by-pagc analysis of all budge: increases from year 
' of the contract to year two. If yau have any questions on these iicrna, please caQ. 

Page 1 M^iT T'er.t Staffing: 

HR/Training Director changed ai Assistant GM, r-n , nn 

Staff Salary Increases p*) f$£> 

£2££-2J22S2&ogjs_Sjagjrs 
Curbsida Managers 

1 . Added one position to maintain 24 hour coverage S45J] 

- Salary increases 55^3 

I axi Supervisors 

1. Added two positions to cover new IT 1 Oncers riafry So? 457 

2, Wage increases SlJ^ 
I a-xi Dispatchers 

1. Added 7 poscona fcr personnel not covered 

in original buegsc - Ncc-SF zed Delta S2Q% 61 S 

2. Added 4 posicccs for zzr* IT coverage 53 - ^ -,gg 
3- Wage increase S24>44Q 



119 



&M94U00 TLEKMBpasjumcpon. 



L l JfDSIDt OPS 



FAX HDL £5G 821 27Q3 



£ or 3 



Limc/\ an Loadinc Zone Socerviscc 

I. Wagcincreasa 
Limo <£ Leading ?rm- Mooimrs 

1. Reiocdan of aoua lor or* IT 

2. Wage incrE*ses to ck: Lining Wage requirrracnc 



SI2.-Q 

CS7.G21 



'age 3 M ^rc-^^ Boris : 



I. Health inagrmcc incms= :?» 
1 Other bccaB incrrrsc 



3gc 4 Ope rations Be^ggty 

i. Taxi Discsica 



2. Health nrqirrni — : -rrr— v 5% 

b. Rrrinsneru pine increase 

c Worifr— i' Co:n? ir7i;rarr.- - 7_3% c^ 

d. Other - HCA. FLTA. SUTA 

2. Taxi Suc=rvnon 

a. Keaith insurance —srsase 5% 

b. Rcdrcnent plzc Lccrcase 

c Wai=rs' Caere lm—rr= - 7 J% rate 
d. Oder - HCA. "fUTA, SUTA 

Page 5 O orudors T| !er^f 'T 

1. Limo/Vaa Luading Zenr Moaners 

a. Esalta insurance - increase 67% (higher cos &an 

anginal budget 
h. Other - RCA. FUTA. SUTA 

2. Limc/Vat Leading Zenc Suvc/vsz^, 

a. Er-Jn insiraacr - ira — Lie 67% (hi^hsr cesi fan 
crrrin2i hra*y 

b. Otfcir - RCA. rUTA. SUTA 



SU4I 

53.435 



SL525 

sa^ 12 

S92.927 
C1.7II 



ST4.42! 

S4/T34 
SI 6.824 

S7--7 



SIJII 



S7,i91 

s;,:^o 



120 



SZ?.19 , 20Q0_13.-to 550 79< 6508 LaNDSIDE OPS 

Attachment IV 
SEP-I5-2Q0Q THE 12: tQ PH SaTTTLErORT FAX NO. 63] 821 2703 ge 3 or J 



1. F»^itf»wwma nca-S»to=s=3 e 

2. Ofaer-ECA.ftirA.SLTA 

Page 12 gq urar pg? Lgs -^c/rVggagc * 

Dccrcsse from y<=r one 
Pay; 1 3 OThw Pmieg Costs. 

Decree 5om yc=r one 
Page I A Pric^g ^ ' TrTlrr "ir r - 

. 1. SubcatfiacatDSBnerfwB^^ 



57,364 

.56^24 

C5SU22) 

(340,745) 

525.500 



c „-,~, <arra: 9 r/o as year our. 575,179 

2. Annual Suppoit Services - **inc 7.1 « , 

532,470 

3. Profr - same 9.15% as yar one 



121 



10. 75^ 
! 




City Hall 
Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244 
BOARD of SUPERVISORS Iwl ^K\ii£flF l z l San Francisco 94102^689 

Tel. No. 554-5184 

Fax No. 554-5163 

TDD/TTY No. 544-5227 



NOTICE OF CANCELLED MEETING 

FINANCE AND LABOR COMMITTEE 
SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the meeting of the Finance and Labor Committee 
scheduled for Wednesday, November 22, 2000, at 10:00 a.m. at 1 Dr. Carlton B. 
Goodlett Place, Room 263, City Hall, San Francisco, California, has been cancelled. 



Gloria L. Young, Clerk of the Board 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 
.NOV 1 • 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Cancelled Meeting Nobce/Ad 1/21/00 



FINANCE AND LABOR COMMITTEE 
S.F. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

CITY HALL, ROOM 244 

1 DR. CARLTON GOODLETT PLACE 

SAN FRANCISCO. CA 94102-4689 



IMPORTANT HEARING NOTICE! 



41 Librar> 

100 Larkin Street Govt Information Center 




City and County of#an Francisco atyHaii 

J 1 Dr. Carlton B. 

Meeting Minutes Goodiett Place 

San Francisco, CA 

Finance and Labor Committee 94102-4689 

Members: Supervisors I. eland Yee, Sue Merman, Tom Ammiano 

Clerk: Mary Red 

Wednesday, November 29, 2000 10:00 AM City Hall, Room 263 

Regular Meeting 

Members Present: Leland Y. Yee, Sue Bierman, Tom Ammiano. 

DOCUMENTS DEPT. 
DEC h 2C00 

Meeting Convened SAN FRANCISCO 

PUBLIC LIBRARY 

The meeting convened at 10:03 a.m. 

001958 [Government funding. Public Utilities Commission, for water pollution control plant remediation 
projects] 

Ordinance appropriating a total of $5,000,000 from the Mission Bay project and the San Francisco Clean 
Water Department fund balance to fund the construction of odor control remediation projects at the southeast 
water pollution control plant, for the Public Utilities Commission, for fiscal year 2000-01. (Controller) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

1 1/1/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst: Bill Berry, Public Utilities Commission. 

Amended to place $5,000,000 on reserve; new title: and on page 2, lines 4 and 7, change project budget 

amounts to $2,500,000. 

AMENDED. 

Ordinance appropriating a total of $5,000,000 from the Mission Bay project and the San Francisco Clean 
Water Department fund balance to fund the construction of odor control remediation projects at the southeast 
water pollution control plant, for the Public Utilities Commission, for fiscal year 2000-01; placing $5,000,000 
on reserve. (Controller) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



001959 [Government funding. Airport capital improvement projects] 
Supervisor Newsom 

Ordinance appropriating $671,165,000 of San Francisco International Airport infrastructure Bond proceeds to 
fund various capital improvement projects for fiscal year 2000-2001. (Controller) 
1 1/1/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee 
CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



City and County of San Francisco I Printed at 2:4~ PM on 11,30/00 



Finance and Labor Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



November 29, 2000 



002014 (Contracting out Airport parking facility management services] 

Resolution approving to exercise first one-year option extending the term of ABC Parking, Inc. operating 

agreement. (Airport Commission) 

1 1/9/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Peter Nardoza, Airport Commission. 

Amended to provide retroactivity; new title. 

AMENDED. 

Resolution approving retroactively to exercise first one-year option extending the term of ABC Parking, Inc. 
operating agreement. (Airport Commission) 
RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



001960 [Government funding. Airport capital improvement projects] 
Supervisor Newsom 

Ordinance appropriating $39,690,612 of various Bond fund balances to capital improvement projects at the 
Airport Commission for fiscal year 2000-2001. (Controller) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

1 1/1/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Han'ey Rose, Budget Analyst; Peter Nardoza, Airport Commission. 

RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Bierman 
Absent: 1 - Ammiano 



001995 [Establishing a budget for the San Francisco Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) for fiscal 
year 2000-01] 

Ordinance appropriating $754,250 of the General Fund Reserve to fund the adoption of the San Francisco 
Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) budget in accordance with the Government Code Section 
56381, for the Board of Supervisors for fiscal year 2000-01. (Clerk of the Board) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

1 1/6/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Supervisor Ammiano; Haney Rose, Budget Analyst; Sttpen'isor Yee; Richard 

Ow; Ernestine Weiss. 

Amended to place $400,000 on reserve; new title. 

AMENDED. 

Ordinance appropriating $754,250 of the General Fund Reserve to fund the adoption of the San Francisco 

Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) budget in accordance with the Government Code Section 

56381, for the Board of Supervisors for fiscal year 2000-01; placing $400,000 on reserve. (Clerk of the Board) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 1:47PM 



Finance and Labor Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



November 29, 2000 



002010 [Grant funds from the State Department of Public Health for mentally ill integrated services| 
Supervisors Leno, Nevvsom 

Resolution authorizing the Department of Public Health, Community Mental Health Services, to accept 
retroactively and expend AB2034 grant funds of a total of $3,961,167 from the State Department of Mental 
Health for integrated services for seriously mentally ill and dual/multiply diagnosed adults; providing for 
ratification of action previously taken. (Public Health Department) 

1 1/8/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. Department requests this item be calendared at the November 
29, 2000 meeting. 
11/15/00, SUBSTITUTED. 

1 1/15/00, ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Louise Rogers, Department of Public Health: 
Richard Robinson, McMillan Drop-In Center. 
Amended to place $490,667 on reserve; new title. 
AMENDED. 

Resolution authorizing the Department of Public Health, Community Mental Health Services, to accept 
retroactively and expend AB2034 grant funds of a total of $3,961,167 from the State Department of Mental 
Health for integrated services for seriously mentally ill and dual/multiply diagnosed adults; providing for 
ratification of action previously taken; placing $490,667 on reserve. (Public Health Department) 
RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



001895 [Reserved Funds, Department of the Environment] 

Hearing to consider release of reserved funds, Department of the Environment (Fiscal year 2000-2001 
Budget), in the amount of $146,244 to implement the department's energy conservation programs. 
(Environment) 

10/24/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 
CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



ADJOURNMENT 



The meeting adjourned at 10:38 a.m. 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 2:4 ' PM on 1 1 .10 00 






[Budget Analyst Report] 

Susan Horn 

Main Library-Govt. Doc. Section 



ico 



CITY AND COUNTY 




OF SAN FRANCISCO 



FSA 



BOARD CF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 554-7642 
FAX (415) 252-0461 



November 22, 2000 

DOCUMENTS DEPT. 



TO: ^.Finance and Labor Committee 

FROM: <Budget Analyst 



NOV 2 8 2000 

SAN FRANCISCO 
SUBJECT: November 29, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meet?A# L,c LIBRARY 

Item 1 - File 00-1958 



Department: 
Item: 



Public Utilities Commission (PUC) 

Ordinance appropriating a total of $5,000,000, including 
$2,500,000 from the Mission Bay Project and $2,500,000 
from the Clean Water Department's unappropiated fund 
balance, to fund the construction of odor control remediation 
projects at the Southeast Water Pollution Control Plan, for 
the Public Utilities Commission, for Fiscal Year 2000-01. 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 

Description: 



$5,000,000 

Mission Bay Project 
Clean Water Department 

Unappropiated Fund Balance 



$2,500,000 

2,500.000 
$5,000,000 



In 1998, the Catellus Development Corporation ("Catellus"), 
the main developer in the Mission Bay Project (discussed 
below), agreed to pay to the City a total of $5,000,000 for 
odor remediation projects at the Southeast Water Pollution 
Control Plant. Catellus agreed to pay this $5,000,000 in two 
installments of $2,500,000 each, paid one year apart from 
one another. The proposed ordinance would approve a 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 29, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



supplemental appropriation for the first $2,500,000 payment 
from Catellus. Since the second payment by Catellus will 
not be made until November of 2001, the proposed ordinance 
would approve an additional $2,500,000 from the Clean 
Water Department's unappropiated fund balance to allow 
the PUC to begin the odor mitigation project immediately. 
This $2,500,000 from the Clean Water Department would be 
reimbursed with Catellus' second payment in November of 
2001. 

The Board of Supervisors approved the contribution of 
$5,000,000 from Catellus in 1998 as part of the Board of 
Supervisors approval of the Mission Bay Project. The 
Mission Bay Project plans to develop approximately 303 
acres of land located generally along the Bay, south of 
Market Street, and is managed primarily by Catellus, under 
the supervision of the City and its Redevelopment Agency. 
The 303 acres of the Mission Bay Project are divided into 
two parts, 65 acres in "Mission Bay North" and 238 acres in 
"Mission Bay South" (the "Plan Areas"). The North and 
South Plan Areas are separated by the Mission Creek 
Channel. 

Catellus agreed to contribute $5,000,000 to the City to 
address existing sewage odor associated with the Southeast 
Water Pollution Control Plant under: (1) the North and 
South Owner Participation Agreements between Catellus 
and the Redevelopment Agency, and (2) the North and 
South Interagency Cooperation Agreements for the Mission 
Bay Project between the City, the Redevelopment Agency, 
and Catellus, as a third party. Mr. Jonathon Loiacono of the 
PUC advises that the payment from Catellus to the City was 
intended to help compensate for the increased demand that 
the Mission Bay Project would place on the Southeast Water 
Pollution Control Plant. According to Mr. Loiacono, Catellus 
agreed to make two separate payments to the City, with the 
first of $2,500,000 to be made 10 days after Catellus 
received final approval for its first building permit (in the 
North or the South Plan Area) and the second payment of 
$2,500,000 to be made one year after the date Catellus 
received that final approval for its first building permit. Ms. 
Amy Neches of the Redevelopment Agency reports that 
Catellus will make its first payment to the City of 
$2,500,000 by the November 29, 2000 Finance and Labor 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 29, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Committee meeting. Catellus is expected to make its second 
$2,500,000 payment to the City in November of 2001, 
according to Ms. Neches. Therefore, the proposed ordinance 
would appropriate the first payment of $2,500,000 from 
Catellus and an additional $2,500,000 from the Clean Water 
Department's unappropiated fund balance, which would be 
reimbursed by Catellus in November of 2001 for the 
proposed capital projects. 

According to Mr. Loiacono, the subject $5,000,000 in capital 
improvement appropriation would be to use fund the 
following two odor remediation projects at the Southeast 
Water Pollution Control Plant, at a cost of $2,500,000 each. 

(1) The Interim Gravity Belt Thickener Project to replace 
the existing open tank dissolved air flotation thickening 
facility, which processes solid waste. According to Mr. 
Loiacono, building the proposed enclosed interim gravity 
belt sludge thickening facility would reduce odors. Mr. 
Loiacono advises that, in addition to the subject Interim 
Gravity Belt Thickener Project, the PUC plans to begin 
building a new, permanent sludge thickening facility in 
2005 as part of the PUC's long-range Capital and 
Financial Plan. 

(2) A Sludge Dewatering and Loadout Facility Odor Control 
Improvements Project would also be constructed to 
reduce odors emitted by the Southeast Water Pollution 
Control Plant by upgrading the ventilation and odor 
control systems in the buildings that house these 
facilities. 

Both projects are described further in Attachment I, 
provided by the PUC, and were identified in the Southeast 
Water Pollution Control Plant Odor Control Master Plan, 
completed in August of 1998, as necessary to reduce odors in 
the surrounding neighborhoods. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 29, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Budget: Attachments II and III, provided by the PUC, contain 

budget details for the proposed $5,000,000 supplemental 
appropriation. Attachment II contains a budget for the 
Interim Gravity Belt Thickener Project, including the 
$2,500,000 supplemental appropriation for construction 
costs and an additional $801,400 in project management and 
design costs, for a total estimated project cost of $3,301,400. 
Attachment III contains a budget for the Sludge Dewatering 
and Loadout Facility Odor Control Improvements Project, 
including the $2,500,000 supplemental appropriation for 
construction costs and an additional $716,300 for project 
management and design costs, for a total estimated project 
costs of $3,216,300. Mr. Loiacono advises that the design 
and project management costs for the two projects will be 
funded by the Clean Water Department's Repair and 
Replacement Fund and operating budget for salaries 
previously appropriated by the Board of Supervisors. 

Comments: 1. Mr. Loiacono advises that that the PUC plans to undergo 

a separate competitive bidding process for each of the 
proposed projects in Spring of 2001 and select construction 
firms by the Fall of 2001. The PUC anticipates completing 
the Interim Gravity Belt Thickener Project by the Fall of 
2002 and the Sludge Dewatering and Loadout Facility Odor 
Control Improvements Project by the Winter of 2002. 

2. According to Mr. Loiacono, the PUC has already begun 
the planning and design phase for each of the two proposed 
odor mitigation projects. As shown in Attachments II and 
III, in addition to the proposed $5,000,000 supplemental 
appropriation for construction, Mr. Loiacono reports that the 
PUC has budgeted $30,800 for planning and $395,600 for 
design of the Interim Gravity Belt Thickener and $391,300 
for design of the Sludge Dewatering and Loadout Facility 
Odor Control Improvements Project. Mr. Loiacono advises 
that the planning and design for both projects will be 
completed on an inhouse basis by the PUC and DPW, and 
are funded by the Clean Water Department's Repair and 
Replacement Fund and operating budget for salaries 
previously appropriated by the Board of Supervisors. 

3. The Budget Analyst notes that the PUC has not yet 
undergone a competitive bidding process for either of the 
two odor mitigation projects funded with the proposed 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 29, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



$5,000,000 supplemental appropriation. Therefore the 
Budget Analyst recommends that this entire $5,000,000 
supplemental appropriation request be placed on reserve by 
the Finance and Labor Committee until the PUC has 
completed a competitive bidding process, and until the PUC 
can provide the Finance and Labor Committee with a 
detailed budget of construction costs based upon the 
competitive bidding process. 

4. As shown in the budget contained in Attachments II and 
III, the construction costs for each of the two proposed odor 
remediation projects (the Interim Gravity Belt Thickener 
Project and the Sludge Dewatering and Loadout Facility 
Odor Control Improvements Project) are budgeted to cost 
approximately $2,500,000 each. However, the subject 
ordinance incorrectly states that the Interim Gravity Belt 
Thickener Project will be allocated $4,000,000 and the 
Sludge Dewatering and Loadout Facility Odor Control 
Improvements Project will be allocated $1,000,000, for the 
total of $5,000,000. Therefore, the proposed ordinance 
should be amended to include the correct project budget 
amounts of $2,500,000 for each of the proposed projects. 

5. As stated previously, Mr. Loiacono advises that 
$2,500,000 of the proposed $5,000,000 supplemental 
appropriation would be funded from the Clean Water 
Department unappropiated fund balance until Catellus 
reimburses the City for the same amount, based on the 
Owner Particpation Agreements between the 
Redevelopment Agency and Catellus and the Interagency 
Cooperation Agreements between the City, the 
Redevelopment Agency and Catellus, as a third party. Ms. 
Neches advises that the City expects to receive this second 
$2,500,000 reimbursement from Catellus in November of 
2001. The PUC is requesting the subject supplemental 
appropriation at this time in order to begin the two projects 
as soon as possible, and in order to have funds appropriated 
to the projects before beginning the competitive bidding 
process. According to Mr. Carlos Jacobo, Budget Director of 
the PUC, the Clean Water Department expects to have an 
unappropiated fund balance totaling approximately 
$65,000,000 by the end of Fiscal Year 2000-01, which would 
be reduced by $2,500,000 to approximately $62,500,000 if 
the proposed supplemental appropriation were to be 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 29, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

approved. However, as noted above, Catellus will reimburse 
the Clean Water Department's unappropiated fund balance 
with a $2,500,000 payment in November of 2001, according 
to Ms. Neches. 

6. As stated previously, Catellus agreed to make two 
separate payments to the City, with the first payment of 
$2,500,000 to be made 10 days after Catellus received final 
approval for its first building permit and the second 
payment of $2,500,000 to be made one year after the date 
Catellus received that final approval for its first building 
permit. According to Mr. Jesse Smith of the City Attorney's 
Office, the North and South Owner Particpation Agreements 
between the Redevelopment Agency and Catellus and the 
North and South Interagency Cooperation Agreements 
between the City, the Redevelopment Agency, and Catellus 
as a third party, legally obligate Catellus to make the two 
payments totaling $5,000,000 to the City by the dates 
described above. Mr. Smith advises that if Catellus fails to 
make its payments to the City, the City (and the 
Redevelopment Agency) would have grounds to seek legal 
recourse. 

Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed ordinance to include the correct 

project budget amounts of $2,500,000 for each of the 
proposed projects, instead of $4,000,000 for the Interim 
Gravity Belt Thickener Project and $1,000,000 for the 
Sludge Dewatering and Loadout Facility Odor Control 
Improvements Project, in accordance with Comment No. 4 
above. 

2. Place the entire requested $5,000,000 on reserve until the 
PUC: (a) completes a competitive bidding process for the two 
proposed construction projects, and (b) provides the Finance 
and Labor Committee with a detailed budget of construction 
costs, in accordance with Comment No. 3 above. 

3. Approval the proposed $5,000,000 supplemental 
appropriation, as amended, is a policy matter for the Board 
of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Attachment I 






afer 1^o c 



> R.U BL1C. 

utiora i 



o rat r©T Division 




MEMORANDUM 



TO : Emilie Neuman 

Budget Analyst 

FROM : Jon Loiacono 

Manager, WPCPD Engineering 



DATE: November 17, 2000 



FILE: Cap. Proj. Mission Bay 



SUBJECT : Item 6, File 00-1058 Project Descriptions 

The two projects selected for funding by the Mission Bay Project are described 
below. The projects are two of many projects identified by Brown and Caldwell 
engineer's in their Southeast Water Pollution Control Plant Odor Control Master 
Plan; dated August 1998. 

The two projects were selected based on their off site impacts, proximity to the 
residential neighborhood, cost availability of funding, and the significance as a 
mitigation to the odor problems at Southeast. 

One project is to replace the open tank dissolved air floatation sludge thickeners 
(see illustration 1) with an enclosed gravity belt thickener facility (see illustration 2). 
Currently, about a half an acre of sludge is open to the atmosphere on the 
dissolved air floatation thickeners. This sludge has a distinct odor which is present 
outside of the plant boundaries and is often carried further by the wind. The 
proposed project is to replace these eight tanks with two mechanical thickeners that 
use four meter belts. The thickeners take up much less area, use less energy, and 
will be enclosed in a building. The air from the process area will be blown through 
an odor treatment device. 

The second project is to enclose and upgrade the ventilation of the existing 
dewatering facility and sludge cake load out facility. Currently, the sludge loadout 
facility is open on one side with no doors. When sludge cake is loaded into a truck 
from the sludge storage hoppers, odor is released. The proposal is to enclose this 
area and provide ventilation and treatment of the odorous air. As part of this 
project an upgrade to the ventilation system of the dewatering facility is included. 

The project breakdowns for the capital funding of $2,500,000 for the construction of 
each project along with the planning / design and construction management costs 
are given in attachments 1 for the Gravity Belt Thickener Project and attacment 2 
for the Bldg. 840 / 860 project. 



JL/ee 

Eimlieneursv\&}c001954 < 



g aii^i^^i ^ ,^^^.,. 



Southeast Plant • 750 PlIELHSSmCLT. San FMAflCISCO. CA 94 I 24 • Tel <<*. 1 5i 6<*.B-5«ia? • F' 



Attachment II 
Page 1 of 2 
City and County of San Francisco ♦ Public Utilities Commission ♦ Clean Water Enterprise 

Water Pollution Control Division 



Engineering 



TO 



Jon Loiacono 



DATE: November 17,2000 



FROM 



Linda Leong 



FILE: 



SUBJECT: SEWPCP Interim Gravity Belt Thickener Facility 
Labor and Construction Cost Estimates 



Construction Costs 
(attached) 


$2,500,000 


Catellus - Mission Bay Project 


Project and Construction 
Management by the PUC* 


375,000 


Clean Water Department's 
Repair and Replacement Fund 


Design by PUC 


100,000 


Clean Water Department's 
Operating Budget for Salaries 


Design by DPW 


295,600 


Clean Water Department's 
Repair and Replacement Fund 


Planning by PUC 


30,800 


Clean Water Department's 
Operating Budget for Salaries 


TOTAL COSTS 


53,301,400 





*We typically would allow S375,000 (i.e., 15 percent) for Project Management, Construction 
Management, and Administrative services during construction. 

Estimated construction cost for this project is S2.5 million. Costs are detailed below and include 
the following markups: 



3% inflation adjustment 
8.5% sales tax 
10% subcontractor profits 
15% General Contractor profits 
1 0% Contingency 



Attachment II 
Page 2 of 2 
City and County of San Francisco ♦ Public Utilities Commission ♦ Clean Water Enterprise 



Bid Item Description 


Estimated 
Quantity 


Unit 


Unit Price 
($) 


Extension ($) 


MOBILIZATION/DEMOBILIZATION (Refer to Section 01505.) 


-- 


L.S. 


-- 


160,000 


ALLOWANCE FOR Hazardous Materials REMOVAL, Handling, 
TRANSPORTATION, and Disposal 




Allowance 


— 


170,000 


FOXBQRO DCS HARDWARE t. ASSOCIATED SERVICES 


-- 


L.S. 


- 


40,000 


Instrumentation and control work 


-- 


L.S. 


- 


80,000 


Paving and site drainage 


-- 


L.S. 


- 


55,000 


BUILDING 260 .- . 






. --.'■>*•• 




Selective Demolition - Mechanical Items 


-- 


L.S. 


-- 


5,000 


Centrifugal Pumps and VFDs for WAS Pumping System 


-- 


L.S. 


-- 


360,000 


Miscellaneous Electrical Work 


-- 


L.S. 


-- 


40,000 


BUILDING 780 -SECONDARY SLUDGE THICKENING 
FACILITY • ?-; 




:-■"'.-" 5^3- 






Selective Demolition - Mechanical Items 


-- 


L.S. 




3,000 


Regenerative Desiccant Air Dryer 


-- 


L.S. 


-- 


9,000 


NEW Connections to EXISTING Piping Systems Related to 
Bldgs 784 and 785 


" 


L.S. 


- 


20,000 


Concrete Containment Walls in the TWAS and TUF Channels 


-- 


L.S. 


-- 


2,000 


Miscellaneous FRP specialty items 


-- 


L.S. 


-- 


15,000 


Miscellaneous Electrical Work 


-- 


L.S. 


-- 


5,000 


BLDG 784 - POLYMER STORAGE, MIX AND FEED 
FACILITY - - \' . - 


: "" 


"' 


-- 




LPO Unloading Station 


-- 


L.S. 


-- 


2,000 


BUILDING 785 - GBT BUILDING 


" 


'-- 


. -- 


■ -r' - 


Drainage Piping Systems for GBT Building 


" 


L.S. 


-- 


15,000 


Piping Systems for the Packaged GBT 




L.S. 


-- 


80,000 


Packaged GBT Systems 




L.S. 




690,000 


Plumbing Systems for GBT Building 




L.S. 


- 


5,000 


Ventilation and Odor Control Systems for GBT Building AND 
TWAS AND TUF CHANNELS 




L.S. 




125.000 


odor control system sitework 




L.S. 




3,000 


odor control system concrete pad 




L.S. 




18,000 


Building site work 




L.S. 


-- 


5,000 


Concrete piles 




L.S. 


- 


38,000 


Building concrete work 




L.S. 


- 


145,000 


PRE-ENGINEERED BUILDING (BLDG. 785) INCLUDING ALL 
BUILDING ELEMENTS 




L.S. 




175,000 


GBT MANAGEMENT & CONTROL SYSTEM 


1 


EA. 


80,000 


80.000 


Steel stairs and bollards 




L.S. 




15.000 


STEEL FRAMING 




L.S. 




45,000 


FRP grating 


" 


L.S. 




30.00C 


Miscellaneous Electrical Work 




L.S. 




35.000 


ALLOWANCE FOR MISCELLANEOUS MOTOR SUPPORTS 




Allowance 


-- 


5.000 


CCTV AND COMMUNICATIONS 




L.S. 


- 


25 DOC 



TOTAL 



$2, 500, 000 



Attachment III 



Date: 11/20/00 
Subject: Sludge Dewatering and Loadout Facility Odor Control Improvements Project 
SEWPCP Bldg 840 & 860 Ventilation and Odor Control Improvements 
Project Cost Breakdown 



Building 860 Work 


FUND 


Estimate 


Architectural Work 




5316,529 


Streets & Highways Work 




573,665 


Structural Work 




5437,385 


Mechanical Work 




S810.313 


Electrical Work 




592,081 




Building 840 Work 


Structural Work 




S34.530 


Mechanical Work 




S689.457 


Electrical Work 




S46.040 




[ 1 .] Project Total Constuction Cost: 




S2,500,000 



[2.] Construction Design Support Fee (3%) 



see note 1 



S75,000 



[3.] Construction Support Fee (BCM) (10%) 



see note 1 



S250.000 



Design Cost 


Initial MOU 
with DPW 


Revised Fee 




Architectural 


S40.000 


S37.300 




Streets & Highways 




SI 3,000 




Structural 


548,000 


S22,000 




Mechanical 


SI 16,000 


545,000 




Electrical 


S20,000 


S40,000 




Geotechnical Consultant Support 




SI 0,000 




[4.] Total Design Fee Cost 


S224.000 


SI 67,300 see note 1 


$391,300 



Total Cost [l.]+[2.] + [3.] + [4.] 



S3.216.300 



1. Clean Water Repair and Replacement Funds 

Source: Public Utilities Commission (PUC) 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 29, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Item 2 - File 00-1959 

Department: Airport 

Item: Ordinance appropriating $671,165,000 of San Francisco 

International Airport Second Series Revenue Bond 
proceeds to fund various capital improvement projects. 

Amount: $671,165,000 

Source of Funds: San Francisco International Airport Second Series 

Revenue Bond (Airport Revenue Bonds) proceeds. 

Description: The Airport has requested that this item be continued for 

one week, until the December 6, 2000 meeting of the 
Finance and Labor Committee. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 29, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Item 3 - File 00-2014 

Department: 

Item: 



Services to be 
Performed: 

Description: 



Comments: 



Airport 

Resolution approving the Controller's certification that 
public parking management services for the San Francisco 
International Airport can continue to be practically 
performed by a private contractor at lower cost for the year 
commencing July 1, 2000 than if the work were performed 
by City and County employees. 

Employee parking management services 

Charter Section 10.104 provides that the City may contract 
with private firms for services, if the Controller certifies, 
and the Board of Supervisors concurs, that such services 
can in fact be performed by private firms at a lower cost 
than similar work performed by City employees. 

The Controller has determined that contracting for 
employee parking management services at the Airport for 
FY 2000-2001 would result in the estimated savings as 
follows: 

Lowest Highest 

Salary Salary 

City-Operated Service Costs Step Step 



Salaries 
Fringe Benefits 
Total 

Contractual Services Costs 1 
Estimated Savings 



$2,569,542 $3,108,159 

747.246 831.917 

$3,316,788 $3,940,076 

2.446.144 2,449.845 

$ 870,644 $1,490,231 



1. Employee parking management services for the Airport 
include management of parking operations, security guard 
services and janitorial services, according to Mr. Fred 
Strong of the Airport. 

2. Employee parking management services have been 
contracted out since 1971, the first year that these services 
were provided. 



1 Contractual Services Costs include contract monitoring by the Airport. When calculating salaries at 
the highest salary step, such costs increase by S3, 701 annually. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 29, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

3. Mr. Strong states that ABC Parking Inc./THOR has 
provided employee parking management services to the 
Airport since September 1, 1999. The prior one-year 
contract with ABC Parking Inc./THOR for employee 
parking management services commenced on September 1, 
1999 and expired on June 30, 2000. The proposed resolution 
authorizes the Airport to exercise the first of four one-year 
options to renew this contract with ABC Parking 
Inc./THOR. 

4. The subject one-year contract with ABC Parking 
Inc./THOR began on July 1, 2000. Therefore, the proposed 
resolution should be amended to provide for retroactive 
authorization. 

5. The Contractual Services Costs used for the purpose of 
this analysis are ABC Parking Inc./THOR's projected FY 
2000-2001 costs for employee parking management 
services. 

6. The Attachment to this report, provided by the Airport, 
is the Controller's supplemental questionnaire with the 
Department's responses. 

Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed resolution to provide for retroactive 
authorization, in accordance with Comment No. 4 above. 

2. Approve the proposed resolution, as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



■f ' * Attac hment 

CHARTER 10.104.15 (PROPOSITION J) QUESTIONNAIRE 



Department: Airport Commission 

Contract Services: Employee Automobile Parking 

Contract Period: July 1 , 2000 to June 30, 2001 



1. Who performed the activity/service prior to contracting out? 

This service has always been contracted out, it has never been operated by City personnel. 

2. How many City employees were laid off as a result of contracting out? 
None 

3. Explain the disposition of employees if they were not laid off. 
N/A 

4. What percentage of City employees' time is spent on services to be contracted out? 
N/A 

5. How long have the services been contracted out? Is this likely to be a one-time or an 
ongoing request for contracting out? 

Services have been contracted out since October 16, 1971, it is likely to remain contracted 
out. 

6. What was the first fiscal year for a Proposition J certification? Has it been certified for 
each subsequent year? 

The first fiscal year for a Proposition J certification was 1999/2000. 

7. How will the services meet the goals of your MBE/WBE Action Plan? 
ABC-Thor is a certified MBE/SBE Company and employs other MBE Companies at the 
Airport garages. 

8. Does the proposed contract require that the contractor provide health insurance for its 
employees? Even if not required, are health benefits provided? 

The contractor provides health insurance for its employees through union agreements. 

9. Does the proposed contractor provide benefits to employees with spouses? If so, are 
the same benefits provided to employees with domestic partners? rf not, how does the 
proposed contractor comply with the Domestic oartners ordinance? 

ABC-Thor has a domestic partners policy j^<h4chv7reets] the ordinance. 

Department Representative: 




Robert ^hoa^es' Deputy Airport Director - Business 
Telephone Number: (650)821-4050 



1 .02.04 02.\BCPROPJCR\RTER10Quesnoniiaire00-Ol 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 29, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Item 4 - File 00-1960 

Department: 

Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 

Description: 



Budget: 



Airport 

Supplemental appropriation ordinance appropriating 
$39,690,612 in capital and bond fund interest income to a 
capital improvement project at the Airport, for FY 2000- 
01. 

$39,690,612 

Attachment I, provided by the Airport, itemizes the 
interest income in the total amount of $39,690,612 earned 
by the Airport in FY 1999-2000 on various capital project 
funds and Unreserved Bond Fund balances. 

Under the Airport's Lease and Use Agreement with the 
airlines, the $39,690,612 in interest earned by the Airport 
on capital and bond fund accounts must be used 
exclusively for capital project purposes. Therefore, the 
Airport is seeking Board of Supervisors approval for a 
supplemental appropriation which would use the 
$39,690,612 interest earnings to partially fund the capital 
costs associated with two Master Plan projects: (a) the 
Airport Rail Transit Operating System (AirTrain 
Operating System), and (b) the Concourse H AirTrain 
Station. The AirTrain is an electric train system which 
will run within the Airport complex linking the Airport's 
four terminals and the new Bay Area Rapid Transit 
(BART) station being constructed in the Concourse H 
AirTrain Station as part of the BART-SFO Airport 
Extension Project which will extend BART services 
directly to the Airport. 

According to Ms. Lisa Harris of the Airport, the subject 
supplemental appropriation of $39,690,612 represents 
approximately 16.7 percent of the estimated total design 
and construction cost of $237,633,460 ($133,737,854 plus 
$103,895,606) for the following two projects: 

• $23,171,529 would be used for the AirTrain Operating 
System, which represents approximately 17.3 pei*cent 
of the total estimated AirTrain Operating System 
design and construction costs of $133,737,854. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 29, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

• $16,519,083 for the Concourse H AirTrain Station, 
which represents approximately 15.9 percent of the 
total estimated design and construction costs of 
$103,895,606 for this project. 

Attachment II, provided by the Airport, contains (a) a 
summary budget for each project, and (b) a list the 
funding sources for each project. Both the AirTrain 
Operating System and the Concourse H AirTrain Station 
are Master Plan projects, primarily funded by Master 
Plan and Airport Infrastructure Bond funds, and the 
subject appropriation. Ms. Harris states that the Board of 
Supervisors approved the Master Plan concepts, and the 
issuance of Master Plan Bonds in the amount of 
$2,850,000,000 to fund the projects which would realize 
those concepts, under Resolution 880-96. 

Comments: 1. The design and construction contractors selected for 

the AirTrain Operating System project (Lea and Elliot, 
and Adtranz respectively) and the Concourse H AirTrain 
Station project (ED2/MBT and Tutor-Saliba Corporation 
respectively) were all selected by the Airport through 
competitive bid processes which considered contractor 
qualifications and costs. 

AirTrain Operating System 

2. The AirTrain Operating System is part of the Airport's 
Master Plan. Components of the system consist of the 
train vehicles, the running surface, the guidance system, 
switches, power distribution, automatic train controls, 
and communications, station, central control, and 
maintenance equipment. The estimated total cost of 
designing and constructing this system is $133,737,854. 
As shown in Attachment II, this comprises (a) $4,359,655 
for design, and (b) $129,378,199 for construction. 

3. In June of 1994, the Airport awarded the AirTrain 
Operating System design contract to Lea and Elliot. 

4. On August 23, 1996, the Airport awarded the AirTrain 
Operating System construction contract to Adtranz. 
Construction began on March 17, 1998 and is scheduled to 
be completed during the first quarter of 2002 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 29, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



(approximately four years). Ms. Harris states that 
$60,417,656 has been expended to date on the AirTrain 
Operating System, funded by Master Plan Bonds 
previously appropriated by the Board of Supervisors. 

5. The $60,417,656 expended to date, plus the 
$23,171,529 portion of the subject appropriation, totals 
$83,589,185 which is approximately 62.5 percent of the 
total estimated cost of $133,737,854. According to Ms. 
Harris, the balance of $50,148,669, or approximately 37.5 
percent, will be funded by Master Plan Bond funds 
previously appropriated by the Board of Supervisors. 

6. According to Ms. Harris, the estimated total project 
cost of $133,737,854 is unchanged since the original 
budget approval for this project. 

Concourse H AirTrain Station 

7. The Concourse H AirTrain Station is also part of the 
Airport's Master Plan. This project consists of the design 
and construction of station facilities to provide a direct 
link from the new BART-SFO Airport Extension to the 
AirTrain and the Airport's four terminals. The Concourse 
H AirTrain Station is a three-level concrete structure 
directly adjacent to the new North International Terminal 
Garage. One level is a BART stop, another level is an 
AirTrain stop. The estimated total cost of designing and 
constructing this structure is $103,895,606. As shown in 
Attachment II, this comprises (a) $7,080,699 for design, 
and (b) $96,814,907 for construction, construction 
management, and materials testing. 

8. In March of 1996, the Airport awarded the Concourse 
H AirTrain Station design contract to ED2/MBT. 

9. On December 16, 1997, the Airport awarded the 
Concourse H AirTrain Station construction contract to 
Tutor-Saliba Corporation. Construction began on 
February 19, 1998 and is scheduled to be completed in 
April of 2001 (approximately three years and two 
months). Ms. Harris states that $79,672,854 has been 
expended to date on the Concourse H AirTrain Station, 
funded by Master Plan and Airport Infrastructure Bond 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 29, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

funds previously appropriated by the Board of 
Supervisors. 

10. The $79,672,854 expended to date, plus the 
$16,519,083 portion of the subject appropriation, totals 
$96,191,937 which is approximately 92.6 percent of the 
total estimated cost of $103,895,606. According to Ms. 
Harris, the balance of $7,703,669, or approximately 7.4 
percent, will be funded by Master Plan and Airport 
Infrastructure Bond funds previously appropriated by the 
Board of Supervisors. 

11. According to Ms. Harris, the estimated total project 
cost of $103,895,606 is unchanged since the original 
budget approval for this project. 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed supplemental appropriation 

ordinance. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Attachment I 



AIRPORT COMMISSION 



CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



RESOLUTION NO. 



00-0342 



S39.690.612 SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION OF INTEREST INCOME 

WHEREAS, the Lease and Use Agreement between the Airport and the airlines requires that interest income earned on 

capital projects funds be used exclusively for capital project purposes; and ' 

WHEREAS, interest earnings on capital project funds total 539,690,612 for FY 1999/00; now therefore, be it 

RESOLVED, that this Commission hereby requests the Mayor to recommend to the Board of Supervisors a Supplemental 

Appropriation of S39,690,612 from the Unreserved Fund Balance of the capital project funds shown 
below: 



Fund Title 
Approved Capital funds 
1967 G.O. Bonds 
1977 Series B Revenue Bonds 
1983 Series D Revenue Bonds 
1990 Series E Revenue Bonds 
Issue 1 
Issue 2 
Issue 3 
Issue 4 
Issue 5 
Issue 6 
Issue 8A 
Issue SB 
Issue 9 A 
Issue 9B 
Issue 10A 
Issue 10B 
Issue 11 
Issue 12A 
Issue 12B 
Issue 13A 
Issue 13B 
Issue 14 
Issue 15A 
Issue 15B 
Issue 16A 
Issue 16B 
Issue 17 
Issue 18A 
Issue 18B 
Issue 19 
Issue 20 
Issue 21 
Issue 22 
Issue 23A 
Issue 23B 
Issue 24A 
Issue 24B 
Issue 25 

TOTAL 



Amount 

S8,772,898 

515,537 

567,432 

S250.367 

595,863 

515,386 

53,677 

S6.087 

51,620 

5607,175 

51,231,974 

$271,251 

5216,680 

5643,607 

5609,405 

$436,695 

S437.869 

$781,626 

Sl.267,983 

51,611,824 

51,445,269 

51,411,126 

S148.662 

$931,914 

5884,567 

$774,166 

5362,341 

5580,628 

5416,942 

51,614,903 

51,182,537 

$173,952 

S2.1S0.636 

Sl.246,561 

52,651,309 

53,229,059 

51,286,120 

S428.953 

51,396.006 

S39.690.612 



/ hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Airport Commission 

_& P 1 9 200Q - -j y^ 



at its meeting oj. 



1 



Secretary 



SAN FRA NCISCO INTERNATION AL AIRPORT 
AirTrain Operating System 



Attachment II 



Construction 
Design 



Total 



5129,378,199 

54,359,655 

S133,737,854 



Funding Source 

Previously Appropriated 
Interest Income 

Subject Interest Income 

Master Plan 



Total 



S17.164.174 

S23, 171,529 

S93,402,151 

S133,737,854 



Concourse H/AirTrain Station 



Construction 

Design 

Construction Management 

Materials Testing 



Total 



S89,813,154 

57,080,699 

55,326,928 

SI, 674,825 

S103,895,606 



Funding Source 
Master Plan 
Non-Master Plan 
Subject Interest Income 



S48,187,49l 
S39,189,032 
S16,519,083 



Total 



5103,895,606 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 29, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Item 5 - File 00-1995 

Department: 

Item: 

Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Board of Supervisors 

Supplemental Appropriation in the amount of $754,250 to 
fund the San Francisco Local Agency Formation 
Commission (LAFCo) for the Board of Supervisors for 
Fiscal Year 2000-2001. 

$754,250 

General Fund Reserve 

On July 3, 2000, the Department of Elections received a 
petition calling for an election to create a Municipal 
Utilities District (MUD) to supply electric power to the 
public for the Cities of San Francisco and Brisbane. The 
Department of Elections determined that the petition 
contained a sufficient number of signatures as required 
under state law. Prior to the submission of the MUD 
petition, the City Attorney issued an opinion that a Local 
Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) must evaluate 
and approve the MUD proposal before an election may be 
called on the question of whether or not to form a MUD. 
Based on the advice of the City Attorney, the Board of 
Supervisors declined to place the MUD proposal on the 
November 7, 2000 ballot. 

The chief proponents of the MUD petition sued the Board 
of Supervisors to compel the Board to place the MUD 
formation proposal on the November 7, 2000 ballot. 
(Ventresca v. Citv and County of San Francisco Board of 
Supervisors , Civil Action No. 313931). The court denied 
petitioners' request and ruled that formation of a MUD 
must undergo LAFCo review and approval before being 
submitted to the voters. 

According to the City Attorney's opinion, State law, 
initially passed in 1963 and subsequently amended in 
1985, created a LAFCo for every County in the State of 
California to conduct a substantive evaluation of 
proposals such as the petition to create the San Francisco- 
Brisbane MUD prior to submitting a ballot measure to the 
voters on this matter. Since San Francisco is both a City 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 29, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

and a County, and has never before formed such a special 
district, there has been no prior need to activate the 
LAFCo, according to Mr. Dorji Roberts, Deputy City 
Attorney. Mr. Roberts adds that the substantive 
evaluation of the MUD proposal will include such matters 
as environmental review, an analysis of services that may 
be performed by the proposed district, how the proposed 
district will be financed, alternatives to the formation of a 
MUD, and other analyses required under State law. 
LAFCo will then decide whether to approve, with or 
without conditions, or disapprove the proposal to create 
the San Francisco-Brisbane MUD prior to submitting a 
ballot measure to the voters on this matter. If approved 
by LAFCo, the issue will then be submitted to the voters. 

On August 21, 2000, the Board of Supervisors adopted a 
motion appointing three of its members to the LAFCo. 
The three members then appointed two private citizens to 
the LAFCo on October 31, 2000, as required by State Law. 

Budget: A summary budget for the proposed supplemental appropriation is 
presented below: 



Temporary Salaries: 


$66,150 


Temporary Staff 




3.500 


Commissioner's Fees 


Subtotal 


$69,650 


See Comment 1 


Fringe Benefits 


5,850 


" 


Travel 


3,000 


ii 


Membership Fees 


2,000 


ii 


Professional Services 


500,000 


See Comment 2 


Official Advertising 


3,500 




Other Current Expenses 


59,000 


See Comment 3 


Materials and Supplies 


6,250 




Services of City Attorney 


100,000 


See Comment 4 


Services of DTIS 


5.000 


ii 



$754,250 



Comments: 



1. Amounts shown above for Temporary Staff ($66,150) 
represents the estimated cost through June 30, 2001 to 
fund temporary staffing for one LAFCO Executive Officer 
(required by State Law) and secretarial staff, according to 
Ms. Gloria Young, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. Ms. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



22 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 29, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Young adds that the specific classifications and salaries 
for such temporary staff have not yet been determined. 

The proposed budget includes $3,500 fund 
Commissioner's Fees based on the five LAFCO 
Commissioners at a fee of $50 per meeting for a total of 14 
meetings to be held during the remainder of Fiscal Year 
2000-2001 A total of $2,000 has been included for 
Membership Dues and $3,000 related to the Travel for 
membership in the State of California Local Agency 
Formation Commission (CALAFCo) and attendance at a 
CALAFCo conference for staff and Commissioners 
scheduled for November 30, 2000 through December 1, 
2000 in Sacramento. 

2. The $500,000 total budgeted for Professional Services 
is to fund the estimated cost of consulting services for 
special projects, data collection and analysis, and required 
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review, 
depending on the LAFCo's future policy decision 
concerning formation of the MUD. This amount is an 
estimate of the potential cost for such items, which could 
be exceeded, according to Ms. Young. No contractors have 
been selected for the $500,000 in Professional Services. 
However, Ms. Young informs that $100,000 is needed 
immediately to hire a consultant to begin the process of 
analyzing the MUD proposal as soon as possible. 
Therefore, the Budget Analyst recommends that $400,000 
of the $500,000 budget for professional services be placed 
on reserve. 

3. The proposed LAFCo budget includes $59,000 for 
Other Current Expenses. This amount represents an 
estimate for as yet unidentified expenditures that may 
occur, including the costs incurred by other City 
Departments that receive requests for services from the 
LAFCo, such as the Assessor, the Department of Public 
Works, the Planning Department and Reproduction and 
Mail Services. 

4. The proposed $100,000 for Services of the City 
Attorney is based on $75,000 of Deputy City Attorney 
time at an average hourly rate of approximately $143 per 
hour for 524 hours and $25,000 for outside counsel based 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 29, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

on approximately 115 hours at an average hourly rate of 
approximately $220 per hour. The Services of the 
Department of Telecommunications and Information 
Services (DTIS) of $5,000 is based on DTIS' standard fee 
for creating and maintaining a web site for the LAFCo 
according to Ms. Young. 

Recommendation: 1. Amend the proposed supplemental appropriation to 

reserve $400,000 of the $500,000 requested for 
Professional Services as described in Comment 2 above. 

2. Approval of the proposed ordinance as amended is a 
policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

November 29, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Item 6 - File 00-2010 



Department: 



Item: 



Grant Amount: 
Grant Period: 
Source of Funds: 
Required Match: 
Indirect Costs: 

Description: 



Department of Public Health (DPH) 
Community Mental Health Services 

Resolution authorizing the Department of Public Health, 
Community Mental Health Services, to accept retroactively 
and expend AB 2034 grant funds of a total of $3,961,167 from 
the State Department of Mental Health for integrated 
services for seriously mentally ill and dual/multiple 
diagnosed adults; providing for ratification of action 
previously taken. 

$3,961,167 

October 15, 2000 through June 30, 2002 (20% months) 

State Department of Mental Health 

None 

The State Department of Mental Health prohibits the 
inclusion of indirect costs under this grant program. 

The proposed grant will fund 20% months of a new program 
that provides integrated services for seriously mentally ill 
and dual/multiple diagnosed people who are either homeless 
or recently discharged from jail, a hospital, or other 
institutions and at-risk of homelessness. Enrollees in the 
program may have mental illness, substance abuse, HIV, or 
other medical problems. Up to 120 people will be enrolled in 
this program at any given time. To be eligible to participate 
in this program, enrollees must not be currently engaged in 
ongoing community mental health treatment. 

According to Ms. Louise Rogers of the DPH, DPH expects the 
distribution of enrollees to come from the following referral 
sources: (1) 30 percent discharges from San Francisco 
General Hospital's Psychiatric Emergency Services and other 
area hospitals, (2) 30 percent from outreach teams, streets, 
and shelters, (3) 30 percent discharges from jail and (4) 10 
percent from a variety of community referral sources, 
including self-help drop-in centers and substance abuse 
programs. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

November 29, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Budget: A summary budget, provided by DPH, is as follows: 

FY 2000-2001 (8'/ a months) 

Integrated Services Program* $ 997,216 

Housing for Program Participants 490,667 

Administration/Reporting 51,364 

Early Intervention and Family Support 121,920 

Subtotal-FY 2000-01 $1,661,167 

FY 2001-2002 (12 months) 

Integrated Services Program* $1,468,364 
Housing for Program Participants 727,273 

Administration/Reporting 104,363 

Subtotal-FY 2001-02 $2,300,000 

TOTAL GRANT AMOUNT $3,961,167 

A detailed budget for the Program, provided by DPH, is 
shown in Attachment I. 

Comments: 1. According to Ms. Rogers, approximately $3,500 of the 

subject grant has been expended for two weeks of salary for 
the Clinical Nurse Specialist position, which is an existing 
position formerly funded by the DPH FY 2000-2001 General 
Fund. As noted on the previous page, the grant period began 
on October 15, 2000 and the proposed resolution provides for 
ratification of action previously taken. However, to date, the 
DPH has not received any of the subject funds. Ms. Rogers 
states that DPH's FY 2000-2001 General Fund is funding the 
personnel expenses for the program until the subject grant 
funds are received by the DPH, at which time the General 
Fund will be reimbursed. Ms. Rogers further states that the 
Department expects to receive the full amount for the first 
year of the subject funds, or $1,661,167, by the first week in 
December of 2000, which can then be used to reimburse 
DPH's expenditures to date. According to Ms. Rogers, the 
DPH expects that beginning in FY 2001-2002, these grant 



includes personnel costs for 16.5 FTEs during FY 2000-2001 and 16.65 FTEs during FY 2001-2002 
(with fringe benefits at 24 percent of annual salary), scattered site housing units through an existing 
contract with Westside Community Mental Health, operating expenses, training expenses, and 
mobile support services. Mobile support services require program staff to travel to clients in order to 
provide psychiatric services, substance abuse treatment, and medical care. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

November 29, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



funds are going to become part of the ongoing annual 
allocation provided by the State Department of Mental 
Health to the DPH. Ms. Rogers reports that the DPH expects 
to receive the second year of funding, $2,300,000, in July of 
2001. 

2. Ms. Rogers reports that the subject grant would fund 16.5 
FTE positions during the first 8/4 months of the subject 
grant, during the remainder of FY 2000-2001, and 
approximately 16.65 FTE positions during FY 2001-2002. 
The DPH is in the process of hiring staff for the 15.5 FTE 
positions, and expects the hiring process to be completed by 
mid-December. According to the proposed resolution, the 
positions at DPH would be designated "G", or grant-funded, 
and would terminate when the grant expires. 

3. The DPH is currently overseeing a Request for 
Qualifications process to select at least one service provider 
to be responsible for on-site support services and property 
management at two facilities to be used for housing the 
clients and for providing support services. These two 
facilities, which the DPH is in the process of leasing, are 
located at 507 Bush Street and 124-126 Turk Street. 
According to Ms. Rogers, such leases will be submitted in the 
near future for Board of Supervisors approval. The two 
facilities would comprise the housing for program 
participants expenditure of $490,667 during FY 2000-2001 
and $727,273 during FY 2001-2002, as shown on the previous 
page in the summary budget. The DPH plans to lease these 
buildings in order to provide housing and treatment for the 
program's clients as well as other DPH clients. Service 
providers will be selected based on the following minimum 
qualifications: (1) three years in providing on-site services in 
supportive housing, (2) three years in providing 
comprehensive property management services in supportive 
housing, (3) demonstrated experience in providing services to 
homeless people with a combination of medical, mental 
health, and substance abuse issues and (4) demonstrated 
experience in providing appropriate services for people with 
HIV/AIDS. The DPH expects contractors to be selected by 
December 6, 2000. Because the selection process for on-site 
support services and property management is not completed 
and the proposed leases for the two facilities have not yet 
been submitted to the Board of Supervisors for approval, the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

November 29, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Budget Analyst recommends that the amount of $490,667 for 
housing for program participants be placed on reserve, 
pending submission of the proposed leases to the Board of 
Supervisors for approval. 

4. The two sites to be leased by the DPH will only provide a 
total of 55 beds for program enrollees. However, the program 
will have up to 120 enrollees. The remaining 65 beds will be 
provided from available housing units already leased by the 
DPH. Also, the DPH will lease additional scattered site 
housing through an existing contract with the Westside 
Community Mental Health organization, a nonprofit agency, 
at a cost of $133,500 during FY 2000-2001 and $100,000 in 
FY 2001-2002, as included in the Integrated Services 
Program section of the summary budget on the previous 
page. The DPH has an existing contract with Westside 
Community Mental Health to provide housing for homeless 
and disabled people who have been living on the street, in 
emergency shelters, and revolving through institutional 
settings. 

5. Attachment II is a Grant Application Information Form, 
as prepared by DPH, which includes a Disability Access 
Checklist. 

6. Because the DPH has expended approximately $3,500 of 
the subject grant for the Clinic Nurse Specialist's salary, the 
proposed resolution provides for retroactive authorization to 
accept and expend the subject grant funds. 

Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed resolution to place $490,667 for 
housing for program participants on reserve pending 
contractor selection and submission of proposed leases to the 
Board of Supervisors for approval. 

2. Approve the proposed resolution, as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Attachment I 
Page 1 of 3 



CJ 




o 


CD 


h- 


CD 


O 
CM 


K 


«5 




s 


C\l 


CD 


en 


a>_ 


o 


ga 




1/1 


[vT 










1/1 


e 




OJ 




m 


CM 




CJ 

o 


o 
e 


;£, 


en 
cy» 




tv> 


69 


CO 


^ 


>« 


— 










o<> 


O 


fa- 


B 












— 


<rt 


M- 


CO 


CO 
CD 




O 


o 




9 


cd 


r^ 




o 






E: 


CO 


CM_ 






o_ 


~ 


ts 




oo" 


>-' 


-3- 

o 




o" 




o 




CD 


CM 




o 


s 


J. 


- 


<* 


Ct9 


fa"} 




PI 


•— 1 


e 


^c 


6«» 








cm" 


s 


> 


s 












R 


fa, 


E5 


























M 








P 








o 








OJ 








£ 


n 






a. 




5 




C/> 

O 

u 


S 




_o 


n 




3 




u 
CO 


00 

CJ 
0/ 




O 
cm 




CJ) 


00 

E 




■e 

u 


w 




ta 


u 


5 
c. 


fa 




C3 


~ 




C/J 




c4 


C 






— 




p 


-D 




o 






S 




cZ 


to 


5 


o 




T 

o 


D. 
O 
u 


a 
a 


It 
u 

> 

00 


ED 


ra 




►J 


o 


-^ 




O 


-5 


tS 


< 

o 


sa 


o 


^ 


43 


— 


< 


tu 


< 




a 


- 


CM 


ci 


t' 





H U 



CM - 



"" w O 

T3 </l — 



2 9 
cb — 
o o 

= > 
fa 



(S rr 



cocococococococococococo 
ppoooooooooo 



Attachment I 
Page 2 of 3 



ooog 

u. u. u. 2 



i^O'-t^r^r^t^-oni^-o 



(/) V) V) 

o o o 

E E E 

in in in 

co r~I r^ 

T3 w 
C _>. 

.2 co 

i< 5 

= c co 

E 



CO CO (9 

o o o 

E E E 

m in w m m m m 



o o o o 
E E E E 



_ 
0- -a _ 

1 < en 



8 " 



t - 



2 E 



NCONNNNNNS 

o. i_ .^ .^ — co — — — 
"; o ■? c M c ^ ® '5. 



to c 
o co 
■55 2 



u u o o o O H 

r li r £ » 



a? •= -c S ■£ £ £ 



en Z 

CM C\l 

CO CM 

CM CO 

CM CM 



10 O O — 

in <si 0) 



m m r^ 

o o CO 

co co in 

CM CM CM 



.c co co 

CO CJ o> 
CII 

co r— in 

co co co 

m in in 

CM CM CM 



NNinscoson 

OOCMCMC^i-OO 

ninNNtMcomco 



o r>- 
05 co 



<o a> co 
in co r- 



r-- CO r- 
n co v 
</» f» «/> 



E E 



o o 
o o 
o o 



»M1P)OOM1NSOO CM 

(NlDCOCMOOCOCOOlOOO O 

o_ 10 co_ cm in o_ <o co oo <o_ o o_ •«-_ 

eo* co m" CM CO* O* CO CO co cm" o" cm" o" 



cm in CO CO CM_ co_ 
a" r>»" V r- o" cm" in" o" co" co" o>" co" 

iDSTOoiNNiomioirin 

b^</»T-T-«/»CMT-b<»«/)W>(/>«/» 



_ o_ o> in in t-_ cm r-~ co_ ot in 

co" in !"-" O) ►»• CO IT *• o" CM CI 

t->-T-CMT-T-^CMr-r-^tf) 



t!MT(J)(Ot(D^IDIDOin 

oinsi-inoivooicM^p) 
eo_ c\i_ in in id t- co o r«- cm_ o> r— 
cm" co cm to r- co' a>" r- co" co" co a> 
comco^-oof-r^OTj-Tj-mco 



co_ cm_ in in co_ r>-_ co_ in r~-_ cm_ a> r^-_ 
cm* co" cm" co" «- co" o>* o" ao* co" co" C7>* 

(omiO'-cofinm^icMn 



o. e. — 

gu ■§ 

- LU CO ,=- 

Is - -/: 



-OTOOOOOOOOO 
^OCOOOOOCOOOO 
2 O CO o o o o_ CO o o o 
_• co' co" o" o" o o" V V o co" 

■IwnoorinNWi-w 



t/> «- l/> «/> </> b"» 



M 



=: — 
o 

u 



c _ 
o u 
O E 



^ u c: 

> T3 o 

u 5 cj 



o ^M i 



£ c_ c/3 o o .-e 



c o « > rl 



— o - 



■fi K w 



c_ < U a. CJ 

LU LU li] !A] ID 



CQ lj cs 



id e. 



Q ci X £ < «-, « 

ID tJ LiJ ID ID < £ 



H r- — r- f- 



— m rs 



m - U w c: O 



-_' 


u 




a 




1 




- 




§: 


"1 




:* 


ID 


U 


.- 




a 






















1/3 


= 


- 


fj 


- 


:-. 




f 


— 












































B 













r. - y t 



UUDciUlfluiOM 



c — 



— 9 
" o 
= o 



<■ <M 3 CJ 

;- m -3 u 

O ^ ■ s 3 



T- ^- ^ ^ 



--- 


CO 


N 


-- 




o 


in 


o 


~- 




^~ 


CNI 


CO 


m 


-•: 








•-'» 


M 


M 


O 


c-> 


n 


-.- 


o 


m 


o 


c 


c^ 


rr, 




Is. 


CD 


CO 


CM 


tN 


EM 


r-j 


i/> 


M 


<rt 



— a 



— O to 5- 



Attachment I 
Page 3 of 3 



|£ 



CO ,_ 



.s o .s 

5^ 



E 3 = 

u~ o 
o ID i 



■° 'S a.— 

■a i E ? 

o 2 £ " 



i C 
u o 



u (j u (j u u u 



- - m r- o 



.. ^f O N fl 

Zjooooooo 



Attachment II 
Page 1 of 2 

File Number: 

(provided by the Board of Supervisors) 

Grant Information Form 

(Effective January 2000) 

Purpose: Accompanies proposed Board of Supervisors resolutions authorizing a 
Department to accept and expend grant funds. 

1. Grant Title: AB2034 Grant 

2. Department: Department of Public Health, Population Health and Prevention, 
Community Mental Health Services. 

3. Contact Person:_Louise Rogers Telephone: 255-3416 

4. Grant Approval Status (check one): 

[ X] Approved by funding agency [ ] Not yet approved 

5. Amount of Grant Funding Approved or Applied for: $1 ,661 ,167 (8.5 mos.) $2,300,000 
(12 mos.) 

6a. Matching Funds Required: $0 
b. Source(s) of matching funds (if applicable): 

7a. Grant Source Agency: State Department of Mental Health. 
b. Grant Pass-Through Agency (if applicable): N/A 

8. Proposed Grant Project Summary: The proposed new grant will fund integrated 
services for seriously mentally ill and dual/multiply diagnosed adults 18 years and 
older who are either (a) homeless, or (b) recently discharged from jail, hospital, or 
other institutions and at-risk of homelessness. 

9. Grant Project Schedule: 

Start-Date: 10/15/00 End-Date: 6/30/01 (It is expected that these 

grant funds will become part of the ongoing State allocation to the Department in 
future funding years.) 



10. Number of new positions created and funded: 16.5 FTE 

1 1 . If new positions are created, explain the disposition of employee(s) once the grant 
ends:_lt is expected that these grant funds are going to become part of the ongoing 
annual allocation provided by the State Department of Mental Health, so end date of 
the grant should not create a funding problem for the new positions. 

12a. Amount to be spent on contractual services: Up to $877.754 in FY 00-01 and up 
to $1,004,233 in FY 01-02. 



11/13/2000 



Attachment II 
Page 2 of 2 
b.) Will contractual services be put out to bid?: Yes, except those that will be 
added to existing contracts. 

c.) If so, will contract services help to further the goals of the department's 
MBE/WBE requirements? : It is expected that it will be non-profit agencies that 
apply for these funds. If not, then the contract services are expected to further the 
department's MBE/WBE goals. 

d) Is this likely to be one-time or ongoing request for contracting out? Ongoing 



1 3a. Does this budget include indirect costs? No 

b. If no, why are indirect costs not included? : 

[ x] Not allowed by granting agency [ ] To maximize use of grant funds 

on direct services 
[ ] Other (please explain): 



14. Any other significant grant requirements or comments: 
"Disability Access Checklist*** 

15. This Grant is intended for activities at (check all that apply): 

[ X] Existing Site(s) [ X] Existing Structure(s) [ X] Existing 

Program(s) or Service(s) 

[ ] Rehabilitated Site(s) [ ] Rehabilitated Structure(s) [ ] New Program(s) 

or Service(s) 

[ ] New Site(s) [ ] New Structure(s) 

16. The Departmental ADA Coordinator and/or the Mayor's Office on Disability have 
reviewed the proposal and concluded that the project as proposed will be in compliance 
with the Americans with Disabilities Act and all other Federal, State and local access 
laws and regulations and will allow the full inclusion of persons with disabilities, or will 
require unreasonable hardship exceptions, as described in the comments section: 

Comments: 

Departmental or Mayor's Office of Disability 



Departmental or Mayors urtice or 
Reviewer: /7 <-vt/u^ y lsi-~Ay ~~ 



Date Reviewed: > ' *'' I j i- / ' <■ 
Department Approval: 



Norman Nickens, 

r, , ( N ame) 
Deputy Director 



Mitchell H. Katz, M.D.. Director nf Hpalth 



(Name) (Title) 



^ht/Q^t 



(Signature) 
11/13/2000 2 




Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 29, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Item 7 -File 00-1895 

Department: 

Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 

Description: 



Department of Environment 

Hearing to request release of reserved Hetch Hetchy 
funds in the amount of $146,244 to be used by the 
Department of Environment to hire two Senior Energy 
Specialists. 

$146,244 

Hetch Hetchy operating funds added and reserved by the 
Board of Supervisors in the Fiscal Year 2000-2001 Hetch 
Hetchy budget, to be work-ordered to the Department of 
Environment. 

In 1999, Hetch Hetchy reorganized and eliminated its 
Bureau of Energy Conservation, an in-house bureau 
responsible for projects to increase energy efficiency 
throughout City and County of San Francisco facilities. 
While Hetch Hetchy continues to oversee energy 
conservation programs for existing City facilities, the 
responsibility for energy efficiency for new City 
construction projects has been shifted to the Department 
of the Environment. The Resource Efficiency Building 
(REB) Ordinance that was approved by the Board of 
Supervisors in May of 1999 (File Nos. 99-0443 and 99- 
0444) requires the Department of Environment to develop 
guidelines for the design and construction of new City 
facilities which are to be energy efficient. Prior to Hetch 
Hetchy's reorganization, the Bureau of Energy 
Conservation had been providing significant support 
towards implementing the REB ordinance. 

During the Finance and Labor Committee's annual 
budget review in June of 2000, the Committee placed 
$146,244 of the proposed FY 2000-2001 Hetch Hetchy 
budget on reserve which was also approved by the full 
Board of Supervisors. The purpose of the reserve was to 
fund the Department of Environment's estimated 
expenditure of $146,244 to hire two Senior Energy 
Specialists. The two Specialists would work with the 
Department of Environment's new Resource Efficiency 
and Energy Conservation Manager to develop a 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 29, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



comprehensive energy and resource conservation program 
for the City. The Department of Environment's proposal 
for implementation of this new plan is explained in 
Attachment I to this report, provided by the Department 
of Environment. 

This request would release the previously reserved 
$146,244 in Hetch Hetchy funds, allowing the 
Department of Environment to fund salary costs for two 
new Senior Energy Specialists for six months, and related 
expenditures, from approximately January 1, 2001 
through June 30, 2001. 



Budget: 


A summary bud 
follows: 


get for t' 


be requested 


$146,244 is as 


Temporary Salaries 
5608 Senior Energy 
Specialists (FY 00-01): 




Bi 


-weekly 
pay 

$2,614 


Pay 

periods 

13 


Total for 1 
position 

$33,982 


Total for both 
positions 

$67,964 


Total Benefits at 24% of 
salaries 










8,156 


16,311 



Professional Services (see below) 



52,418 



Supplies and Non-Personal Costs 
Training 

2 Personal Computers and Related Software 
Furniture for two staff 
Phone Lines/Use 
Office Supplies 
Subscriptions 

Total Supplies and Non-Personal 

Grand Total 



1,500 

5,000 

1,000 

900 

651 

500 

$9.551 

$146,244 



On an annual basis, the two Senior Energy Specialist 
positions would earn salaries of $68,225 each at current 
rates of pay (excluding benefits). Attachment II to this 
report, provided by the Department of the Environment, 
contains additional details regarding the costs listed 
above as "Professional Services". 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 29, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Comments: 1. According to Ms. Marina Kipnes of the Department of 

Environment, the Department does not intend to hire 
employees for the two proposed 5608 positions until the 
Board of Supervisors, Finance and Labor Committee has 
approved funding via the requested release of reserved 
funds. Ms. Kipnes states that the Department expects to 
fill both the proposed Senior Energy Specialist positions 
on January 1, 2001. 

2. According to Ms. Kipnes, the training, personal 
computers and software, furniture, telephone, office 
supplies, and subscription items listed in the 
Department's budget under "Supplies and Non-Personal 
Costs" are needed to directly support the two new 
proposed Senior Energy Specialists. 

3. As noted above, the Board of Supervisors placed the 
subject $146,244 of the proposed FY 2000-2001 Hetch 
Hetchy budget on reserve in order to fund Department of 
Environment expenditures of $146,244 to hire two civil 
service Senior Energy Specialists. However, the budget 
submitted by the Department of Environment indicates 
that the Department proposes to expend $52,418 of the 
$146,244 requested release of reserved funds on 
"Professional Services." According to Ms. Kipnes, the 
Department of Environment has not yet officially selected 
any contractors to provide the proposed professional 
services listed in Attachment II, and the Department has 
not provided the Budget Analyst with estimated hours or 
hourly rates for the proposed professional services work. 
Ms. Kipnes notes, however, that the Department 
currently has a contract with Global Green, a non-profit 
company, for professional services unrelated to the subject 
proposed release of reserves. According to Ms. Kipnes, 
the Department would seek to expand the scope of its 
existing contract with Global Green to include proposed 
professional services related to training of personnel, 
should the Finance and Labor Committee approve the 
requested release of reserved funds. Ms. Kipnes further 
states that the Department intends to work order all 
other professional services from the Bureau of 
Architecture. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

November 29, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Until contractors are selected and budget details are 
submitted to the Board of Supervisors, the $52,418 in 
funds requested for professional services should continue 
to be reserved. Furthermore, because the purpose of the 
$146,244 reserved by the Finance and Labor Committee 
was to fund two Senior Energy Specialist positions and 
not professional services, the Budget Analyst considers 
approval of the $52,418 for such professional services 
expenditures to be a policy matter for the Finance and 
Labor Committee. 



Recommendations: 



1. Release $93,826 of the subject $146,244 reserved funds 
to fund the two Senior Energy Specialist positions and 
related expenditures. 



Supervisor Yee 
Supervisor Bierman 
President Ammiano 
Clerk of the Board 
Controller 
Steve Kawa 



2. Continue to reserve the $52,418 for professional 
services pending selection of contractors and submission 
of contract details, including estimated hours and hourly 
rates. 

3. Approval of the $52,418 requested for professional 
services is a policy matter for the Finance and Labor 
Committee, since the funds appropriated were not 
intended to be expended for professional services. 




'/^/^W_ 



Harvey M. Rose 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 




Attachment I 
Page 1 of A 



Department of the Environment 

City and County of San Francisco 



FrancescaVietor, Director 



PROPOSAL FOR RELEASE OF FUNDS ON RESERVE 
FOR ENERGY CONSERVATION 

Background: The Board of Supervisors has put $146,244 of funding for the Department of 
the Environment on reserve for the purpose of energy conservation. This proposal asks that 
these funds, which were work ordered from Hetch Hetchy for Energy Conservation, be released 
for the purpose of hiring two senior energy and resource conservation specialists to work with 
the Department of the Environment's new Resource Efficiency and Energy Conservation 
Manager to develop a comprehensive energy and resource conservation program for the City of 
San Francisco. A portion of the funds would be used to provide for program materials for the 
specialists. 

Proposed Allocation of Funds: Two senior energy and resource conservation specialists, 
class 5608, would be hired as of January 2, 2001. These positions would be temporary. The 
allocation of these funds will cover salaries and expenses through the end of fiscal year 2000- 
2001. Staff in these positions would work under the direction of the Resource Efficiency and 
Energy Conservation Manager, class 1888. Some of the funds would also go toward paying for 
professional services to hire consultants and the City and County of San Francisco Bureau of 
Architecture to provide technical expertise on energy efficiency. The subject positions would 
focus on the following areas: 

• Designing, implementing and promoting the energy conservation programs outlined in the 
Resource Efficient Building Ordinance 

• Working with the 10 pilot projects selected under the guidelines of the Resource Efficient 
Building Ordinance on energy conservation programs for each of these projects 

• Using the Sustainability Plan and Department of the Environment planning documents as a 
guide, designing, initiating, implementing, monitoring and evaluating an energy policy for 
the City of San Francisco 

• Design and implement a local Climate Change Plan (CCP) for energy and C02 emissions 
reduction, including working with the International Council for Local Environmental 
Initiatives (ICLEI) 

• Developing plans and budgets for sustainable energy programs to be funded by energy 
savings 



Attachment I 
Fage 2 of 4 



Allocation Request for Fiscal Year 00-01 



Salaries 


$ 


67,964.00 


Benefits 


$ 


16,311.00 


Professional Services 


$ 


52,418.00 


Training 


S 


1,500.00 


Computer/Software 


$ 


5,000.00 


Furniture 


s 


1,000.00 


Phone 


$ 


900.00 


Office Supplies 


$ 


651.00 


Subscriptions 


$ 


500.00 


Total 


$ 


146,244.00 



Short Job Description: Perform a variety of duties related to the implementation, 
monitoring and evaluation of a broad range of resource and energy issues and projects, 
including: development and implementation of resource and energy efficiency plans and 
programs; reduction of fossil fuel consumption by vehicles and power plants; conservation 
and efficient utilization of water and energy resources; and representation of the City in a wide 
variety of trade and industry forums at which fossil fuel reduction, resource and energy 
efficiency, renewable resources, greenhouse gases, climate change and long term sustainability 
are presented and discussed. In addition, this position will assist with the preparation of grant 
proposals; generate research studies, reports, contracts and other written materials, and perform 
other related duties as required. 

Minimum Qualifications: 

1 . Possession of a baccalaureate degree from an accredited college or university with major 
course work in any of the following areas: planning, engineering, ecology, energy 
conversation, the physical or biological sciences, architecture, or a closely related field; AND 

2. Three (3) years of verifiable, professional experience in the initiation, implementation, 
monitoring and/or evaluation of energy conservation projects or programs. 



Attachment I 
Page 3 of 4 



Work Plan For Resource and Energy Efficiency Program Area: 

The following specific projects will be carried out by the entire resource and energy efficiency 
program area. There are currently two staff in this area, and if the two additional staff are 
approved, the four staff would work on the following specific projects. 



IMPLEMENT RESOURCE EFFICIENT BUILDING (REB) ORDINANCE 

• monitor mandatory measures 

• develop new mandatory measures 

• provide energy recommendations and monitoring on pilot projects 

• identify funds/financing for incremental capital costs 

• draft design and overall guidelines 

• participate on task force 

• coordinate consultant work 

ENERGY POLICY AND PROGRAM PLANNING 

Research and analyze information on conservation programs and products 
Develop a city-wide energy efficiency and renewables plan and budget 
Develop a program for photovoltaic financing and implementation 
Develop plans and programs to mitigate adverse energy impacts 
Evaluate new proposed power generation projects 
Develop plans for implementation of energy section in sustainability plan 
Track and provide input to energy studies and reliability issues 

FINANCING AND FUNDRAISING 

• Develop a plan and a budget for sustainable energy programming to be funded by energy 
savings 

• Identify funding sources for retrofits, incremental costs and renewables 



Attachment I 
Page 4 of 4 



• Identify financing opportunities for revenue generation, job creation, incremental cost 
subsidies 

• Develop a plan and a budget for sustainable energy programming 



IMPLEMENT GLOBAL WARMING ACTIVITIES 

• design, finalize and implement local action plan for energy emissions reductions (C02 
reductions) 

• set and meet City and County energy emission reduction goals 

• liaison with International Council for Local Environmental Intiatives (ICLEI) 

TRA CK PO WER PLANTS/GENERA TION PROJECTS 

• Potrero Power plant 

-assist with Southern negotiations 

-participate with task force 

-ensure environmental programming and efficiencies 

• Shut down of Bayview Hunters Point 

-attend meetings/negotiations on new power plant sitings 

• Help coordinate business plan with Hetch Hetchy to site plants 

SPECIAL PROJECTS 

• Develop and implement green schools program 

• Assist with sustainable development of San Francisco's military bases 

• Develop commercial and residential energy efficiency outreach programs 

• Assist with related projects on an as-needed basis. 




Attachment II 



Department of the Environment 

City and County of San Francisco 

FRANCESCA VIETOR, DIRECTOR 

Professional Services Detail 

The reason for professional services is to provide specialized support to the two energy specialist 
positions. The energy specialists would have broad knowledge of energy issues and technology, but 
cannot have technical expertise and experience in all aspects of energy markets, energy policies, 
regulations, equipment, design tools, and construction practices. The following is a breakdown of the 
$52,418.00 professional services line item in the budget: 

1. $26,418 Consultants will review, analyze, and make recommendations for specialized energy 

efficient design measures and renewable energy in new construction projects. This 
may include benefit-cost analysis and building modeling. Expected projects include 
Laguna Honda Hospital, several libraries, several recreation centers, and a new 
administrative building at 525 Golden Gate. Department of the Environment will 
workorder CCSF Department of Public Works/Bureau of Architecture to incorporate 
the specialized energy efficiency measures into the design projects. 

2. $10,000 Consultants will develop design tools for specialized efficiency technologies in new 

construction projects. 

3. $5,000 Consultants will assist in the development and implementation of workshops for CCSF' 

engineers, architects, building inspectors, and other staff on design of renewable 
energy and energy-efficient HVAC, lighting, and other systems. 

4. $5,000 Consultants will provide technical assistance for the development of a C02 reduction 

plan. The assistance can include market segmenting, estimating market potential, 
defining market barriers, designing programs, estimating market penetration, 
estimating program costs, and analyzing local economic benefits of C02 reduction 
programs. 

5. $3,000 Consultants will develop RFP and specifications language for specialized energy- 

efficient design measures in new construction projects. 

6. $2,000 Consultants will prepare and review building commissioning plans for the energy- 

efficient design measures in new construction projects. 

7. $1,000 Consultants will review and assess training proposed by contractors on specialized 

energy using equipment in new construction projects. 



11 Grove Street, San Francisco, California 94102 

www.ci.sf.ca.us/environment 

Telephone (415) 554-6390 Fax 554-6393 E-mail: Environment@ci.sf.ca.us 




[All Committees] 

City and County of !>an Francisco Government Document Section 
lVToofinfT lVTSnu+oe Main Library 



.^Meeting Minutes Main Librar y 

^Finance and Labor Committee 

Members: Supervisors Leland Yee, Sue Merman, Tom Ammiano 
Clerk: Mary Red 



'/• 



Wednesday, December 06, 2000 10:00 AM City Hall, Room 263 

Regular Meeting 



Members Present: Leland Y. Yee, Sue Bierman, Tom Ammiano. 



Meeting Convened 

The meeting convened at 10:05 i 



001944 [Government Funding, $89,000, Department of Environment] 
Supervisors Ammiano, Bierman, Leno 

Ordinance appropriating $89,000 from the General Fund Reserve for the Department of Environment to fund 

the community window on the cleanup of the Hunters Point Shipyard that serves as the central location for the 

community on information, cleanup and emergency alert, for fiscal year 2000-01. 

10/30/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

12/4/00, SUBSTITUTED. Supervisor Ammiano submitted a substitute ordinance bearing new title. 

12/4/00, ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. Sponsor requests this item be scheduled for consideration at the December 6, 2000 

meeting. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Supervisor Ammiano; Angelo King, Southeast Roundtable; Jill Fox, Hunters 
Point Shipyard Restoration Advisoiy Board; Lynn Brown, Community For Better Environment; Jessie Mason; 
Scott Madison, Hunters Point Shipyard Citizens Advisory Committee; Olen Webb, Bayview Hunters Point 
Community Advocates; Karen Pierce; Saul Bloom, Director, Arc ecology. 
Continued to December 20, 2000. 
CONTINUED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



DOCUMENTS DEPT 



DEC 1 1 2CCJ 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



City and County of San Francisco 1 Printed at 11.54 AM on 1W/00 



Finance and Labor Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



December 6, 2000 



00201 1 [Suspension of MUNI fares on New Year's Eve.] 
Supervisors Newsom, Leno 

Ordinance approving the suspension of fares on Municipal Transportation Agency (MUNI) revenue vehicles 
on New Year's Eve, the creation of a pass for University of San Francisco undergraduate students, and the 
appropriation of $833,296 to fund an increase in Municipal Transportation Agency's budget for fuel for fiscal 
year 2000-01. (Public Transportation Commission) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

1 1/8/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED lo Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Supervisor Yee; Ted Lakey, Deputy City 

Attorney; Gigi Harrington. Deputy General Manager, Finance and Administration, MUNI; Holly Hogan, 

USF; Michael Farrah, Aide to Supervisor Newsom; Hidi Machen, Aide to Supervisor Newsom; Laura 

Spanjian, MUNI; Supervisor Ammiano; Supervisor Bierman. 

Amendment of the Whole deleting reference to BART use; adopted. After further consideration the legislation 

was divided into three separate pieces; see Files 002149, creation of muni pass for USF students and 002150, 

budget for fuel. 

Supervisor Bierman added as cosponsor. 

AMENDED, AN AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE BEARING SAME TITLE. 

DIVIDED. 

Ordinance approving the suspension of fares on Municipal Transportation Agency (MUNI) revenue vehicles 
on New Year's Eve. (Public Transportation Commission) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



002149 [Creation of pass for University of San Francisco undergraduate students] 
Supervisors Leno, Newsom, Bierman 

Ordinance approving the creation of a pass for the amount of $ 1 2 per month for University of San Francisco 
undergraduate students for rides on MUNI revenue vehicles. 

(Fiscal Impact.) 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Supervisor Yee; Ted Lakey, Deputy City 
Attorney; Gigi Harrington, Deputy General Manager, Finance and Administration, MUNI; Holly Hogan, 
USF; Michael Farrah, Aide to Supervisor Newsom; Hidi Machen, Aide to Supervisor Newsom; Laura 
Spanjian, MUNI; Supervisor Ammiano; Supen'isor Bierman. 
Divided from File 002011. 
DIVIDED. 

RECOMMENDED AS DIVIDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 11:54. AM on 12/7/00 



Finance and Labor Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



December 6, 2000 



002150 [Amending Municipal Transportation Agency's budget for fuel expenditures for FY 2000-01] 
Supervisors Leno, Newsom, Bierman 

Ordinance approving the appropriation of $833,296 to fund an increase in Municipal Transportation Agency's 
budget for fuel for Fiscal Year 2000-01. 

(Fiscal Impact) 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Supervisor Yee; Ted Lakey, Deputy City 
Attorney; Gigi Harrington, Deputy General Manager, Finance and Administi-ation, MUNI; Holly Hogan, 
USF; Michael Fairah, Aide to Supervisor Newsom; Hidi Machen, Aide to Supervisor Newsom; Laura 
Spanjian, MUNI; Supervisor Ammiano; Supervisor Bierman. 
Divided from File 00201 J. 
DIVIDED. 

RECOMMENDED AS DIVIDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



001996 [Acceptance of easement deed to provide ADA access to the renovated Japantown Peace Plaza] 

Resolution authorizing the Director of Property to accept an easement deed over private property for 
accessible access to the Peace Plaza in Japantown. (Real Estate Department) 
1 1/3/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Har\<ey Rose, Budget Analyst; Harry Quinn, Real Estate Department. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



002007 [Reserved Funds, Department of Human Services] 
Supervisor Bierman 

Hearing to consider release of reserved funds, Department of Human Resources, (1999-2000 Budget reserve), 
in the amount of S453,170 for site acquisition and capital improvements for the Mission Neighborhood 
Resource Center facility. (Human Services Department) 

1 1/8/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. Department requests this item be calendared at the November 
29, 2000 meeting. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Trent Rhorer, Acting Executive Director, 
Human Services Department; Joyce Miller, Coalition of Homelessness ; Silvia Alvizar; Silvia Donij; Bill Sorro, 
Mission SRO Collabrative; Teresa Betancourt, Marshall School; Betty Trayner, 16th Street Neighborhood 
Association; Ann Blackstone, Mission Hotel; Janice Belen, Merchant; Dr. Terry Ginvannini, Mission Health 
Center; Jerry Rogers, S. F. Community Clinic Coalition; Richard Marquez, Mission Agenda; Sergio Canjura, 
Mission Health Center; Mauricio Aviles; Supervisor Ammiano; Michele Byrd, Human Services Department. 
Amended to only release $402, 1 70. 
Supervisor Bierman added as cosponsor. 
APPROVED AND FILED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 11:54 AM on 12/7/00 



Finance and Labor Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



December 6, 2000 



002096 [Lease of property at 165 Capp Street for homeless drop in and referral center] 
Supervisor Ammiano 

Resolution authorizing a lease of real property at 165 Capp Street on behalf of the Department of Human 
Services. 

1 2/4/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Haney Rose, Budget Analyst; Trent Rhorer, Acting Executive Director, 
Human Services Department; Joyce Miller, Coalition of Homelessness ; Silvia Alvizar; Silvia Domj; Bdl Sorro, 
Mission SRO Collabrative; Teresa Betancaut, Marshall School; Betty Trayner, 16th Street Neighborhood 
Association; Ann Blackstone, Mission Hotel; Janice Belen, Merchant; Dr. Terry Ginvannini, Mission Health 
Center; Jerry Rogers, S. F. Community Clinic Coalition; Richard Marquez, Mission Agenda; Sergio Canjura, 
Mission Health Center; Mauricio Aviles; Supervisor Ammiano; Michele Byrd, Human Services Department 
Amendment of the Whole reflecting Budget Analyst's recommendations. 
Supervisor Bierman added as cosponsor. 

AMENDED, AN AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE BEARING SAME TITLE. 
RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



002009 [Reserved Funds, Rent Board) 

Hearing to consider release of reserved funds, Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Board, in the amount of 
$175,000 (File 991412, Ordinance No. 55-00), to defray costs for the Housing Study and related issues. (Rent 
Stabilization and Arbitration Board) 

1 1/9/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee 

Heard in Committee. Speaker: Joe Grubb, Executive Diredtor, Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Board. 
Release of reserved funds in the amount of Si 75,000 approved. 
APPROVED AND FILED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



002033 [Proposed closure and relocation of broadcast studios] 
Supervisor Ammiano 

Hearing to consider AT&T Broadband's proposed closure and relocation of broadcast studios. 
1 1/13/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 
FILED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



SPECIAL ORDER - 11:00 a.m. 



Cify and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 11:54. 4M on 12/7,V0 



Finance and Labor Committee Meeting Minutes December 6, 2000 



001224 [Park Merced Apartments] 
Supervisor Ammiano 

Hearing to inquire into the proposed capital improvement pass through and resultant rent increase to tenants at 
the Park Merced Apartments. 

6/26/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Supervisor Ammiano; Linda Dolan, President, Park Merced Association; 
Lora Traveler, Augusta; Anthony Simmons, Vice President, Park Merced Residents Organization; Garfield 
Powell; Michele Miller; Vicki Mack; Genevieve Callejo; Brook Turner, Coalition for Better Housing; Pat 
McDermitt; Pauletta Burros, General Manager, Park Merced Apartments; Joe Grubb, Executive Director, 
Rent Board. 

CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



ADJOURNMENT 

The meeting adjourned at 1 1:58 a.m. 






City and County of San Francisco 5 Printed at 11:54 AM on 12/7/00 




City Hall 
Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244 
BOARDof SUPERVISORS l^(^Rv7Z3lf I 2 ) San Francisco 94102-4t>89 

ISyBsSlW*' Tel. No. 554-5184 

V*^H l&WZ/ Fax No. 554-5163 

TDD/TTY No. 544-5227 



%25^ 






/NOTICE OF CANCELLED MEETING 

^FINANCE AND LABOR COMMITTEE 
SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 



NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the meeting of the Finance and Labor Committee 
scheduled for Wednesday,, December 13, 2000 at 10:00 a.m. at 1 Dr. Carlton B. 
Goodlett Place, Room 263, City Hall, San Francisco, California, has been cancelled. 



Gloria L. Young, Clerk of the Board 



DOCUMENTS DEPT 

dec 1 i 2c;: 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Cancelled Meeting Notice/Ad 



FINANCE AND LABOR COMMITTEE 
S.F. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

CITY HALL. ROOM 244 

1 DR. CARLTON GOODLETT PLACE 

SAN FRANCISCO. CA 94102^*689 

IMPORTANT HEARING NOTICE!!! 



41 Library 

100 Larkin Street Govt Information Center 



[Budget Analyst Report] 
Susan Horn 

Mam Library-Govt. Doc. Section 



3 
h/oo 




ofsanfranciscoocumeiMTS DEPT 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DEC C 5 2000 

BUDGET ANALYST dud,,. SC( 

PUBLIC LIBRARY 

1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 554-7642 



FAX (415) 252-0461 



November 30, 2000 



TO: ^Finance and Labor Committee 

FROM: * Budget Analyst 

SUBJECT: December 6, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 
V 

Item 1 - File 00-1944 

Department: Department of the Environment 

Item: Ordinance appropriating $89,000 from the General Fund 

Reserve for the Department of the Environment to fund a 
Community Window to disseminate information on the 
cleanup of the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, designed to 
serve as the central location for the community on 
information, cleanup, and emergency alerts, for Fiscal 
Year 2000-01. This report is based on the Substitute 
Ordinance introduced on November 28, 2000. 

$89,000 

General Fund Reserve 

The proposed ordinance would appropriate $89,000 to the 
Department of the Environment to fund a Community 
Window on the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard Cleanup 
('Community Window") in the Bayview Hunters Point 
neighborhood to serve as a central location for posting and 
disseminating information to the public related to 
environmental cleanup efforts at the Hunters Point Naval 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 6, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Shipyard. The Community Window would be located in 
the six foot by six foot storefront of the Community First 
Coalition/Bayview Hunters Point Community Advocates 
Office, located at 5021 3 ,d Street, between Palou and 
Quesada Avenues. The Community Window would be 
open to the public Monday through Firday, 9 a.m. to 5 
p.m. and would be updated regularly and staffed by the 
Bayview Hunters Point Community Advocates, one of the 
three community-based organizations to develop and 
operate the Community Window (discussed below). 

According to Ms. Francesca Vietor, Director of the 
Department of the Environment, the Community Window 
will contain four main components: 

(1) A storefront window display visible to the street, to be 
updated weekly with information related to the 
Bayview Hunters Point Naval Shipyard cleanup. 

(2) A Cleanup Information Center immediately behind the 
display window, containing copies of relevant 
documents, updated schedules of meetings, hearings 
and other events related to the shipyard cleanup, 
cleanup job referral information, and a television to 
view a library of video tapes on toxic waste cleanup 
related to the shipyard. The Cleanup Information 
Center would also include a toll-free public 
information telephone line with a pre-recorded, 
regularly updated message with cleanup news and a 
computer terminal for searching cleanup records and 
Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
databases. 

(3) A Community Emergency Alert Center using the 
display window and the telephone Information Hotline 
discussed above to provide up-to-date information in 
the case of an emergency. 

(4) A website called "Window on the Web" would provide 
internet access to updates, schedules and documents 
provided at the Community Window. 

According to Ms. Vietor, $85,000 of the proposed $89,000 
supplemental appropriation would be allotted to three 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 6, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

community-based non-profit organizations to develop and 
operate the Community Window, with the Department of 
the Environment administering the funds and providing 
information and resources on the clean-up via its 
EcoCenter. Through its EcoCenter, the Department of the 
Environment provides public education and outreach on 
local environmental issues. Ms. Vietor advises that the 
remaining $4,000 of the proposed $89,000 supplemental 
appropriation would fund administrative costs incurred 
by the Department of the Environment in administering 
the contract for the proposed Community Window. 

The Bayview Hunters Point Community Advocates, a 
local non-profit organization, would oversee the display 
window, the Cleanup Information Center, the public 
information telephone line, and provide an existing full- 
time employee to staff the Cleanup Information Center. 
Ms. Vietor advises that under a subcontract with the 
Bayview Hunters Point Community Advocates, Arc 
Ecology would also provide a full-time equivalent existing 
employee to serve as the Cleanup Information 
Coordinator, assigned to collecting and analyzing 
technical papers and information on cleanup efforts to be 
posted in the Information Center and on the website. In 
addition, the Bayview Hunters Point Community 
Advocates would provide a subcontract to an organization 
called the Hunters Point Shipyard Trust for the Arts to 
design displays in the storefront window, in the 
Information Center and on the website. (See Comment 
No. 2 below). 

Budget: Attachment I to this report, provided by the Department 

of the Environment, contains budget details for the 
proposed $89,000 supplemental appropriation for the one- 
year period from January 1, 2001 through December 31, 
2001. 

Comments: 1. According to Ms. Vietor, the first year of the proposed 

Community Window will serve as a pilot program, with 
future funding subject to appropriation by the Board of 
Supervisors, based upon demonstrated success and need. 
Ms. Vietor advises that the Department of the 
Environment will evaluate the success of the pilot 
program based on the level of community participation in 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 6, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



the shipyard clean-up efforts. Some of the performance 
measures would include the number of website hits, level 
of traffic by the Community Window and the Cleanup 
Information Center, number of calls to the Center, 
number of community members involved in the clean-up 
process, and Hunteis Point residents' level of satisfaction 
with the information being provided about the overall 
clean-up plan. The Budget Analyst notes that the subject 
$89,000 supplemental appropriation includes one-time 
costs of $16,500 as shown in budget contained in 
Attachment I, including the $6,500 for the window display 
and approximately $10,000 for a new computer, related 
software and supplies, and website development. 

2. Ms. Vietor advises that the community-based non-profit 
organizations that would staff and operate the 
Community Window (the Bayview Hunters Point 
Community Advocates, Arc Ecology, and the Hunters 
Point Shipyard Artists) were selected on a sole source 
basis, according to Ms. Vietor, because these three 
organizations worked together to design the proposed 
Community Window program and have extensive 
experience with the Hunters Point community and the 
technical issues involved in the clean-up efforts. 
According to Ms. Vietor, a contract in the amount of 
$85,000 to operate the Community Window will be 
between the Department of the Environment and the 
Bayview Hunters Point Community Advocates for one 
year, beginning January 1, 2001 and ending December 31, 
2001. As shown in Attachment I, Ms. Vietor advises that 
the Bayview Hunters Point Community Advocates in turn 
will allocate $34,250 in funds to Arc Ecology to fund the 
Cleanup Information Coordinator and related 
administrative expenses, and $6,500 to the Hunters Point 
Shipyard Trust for the Arts for the design and construct 
displays. 

3. Attachment II, provided by the Department of the 
Environment, contains a one-year work plan and time 
line for creating the proposed Community Window. 



Recommendation: Approval of the proposed ordinance is a policy matter for 

the Board of Supervisors. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Attachment I 



MEMORANDUM 



TO: MarinalKipnis, Executive- Asst., Dept. of Environment 

FROM: Alex Lantsberg, Project & Development Coordinator, Arc Ecology 

RE; Cost Breakdown for Window Proposal (1/1/2001 - 12/3172001) 



Per our conversation, the following is a more detailed breakdown of the budget figures for the 
Community Window on the Shipyard Cleanup proposal. Per my conversation with the 
Advocates' Executive Director, an existing staff person will assume responsibilities for item 1. 
Please contact me! with any questions at 415/495-1786. 

1. Facility, Display, & Web Management and Referral Services (based at BVHP Advocates) 

$27,500.0() 1 FTE Staff Person (annual) 

S4, 125.06 taxes & benefits (15%) 

S2.625.00 administrative expenses, rent, and overhead 
S34.250.0Q 

2. Cleanup Information Coordinator (based at Arc Ecology) 

527,500.09 1 FTE Staffperson (annual) 

$4,125.00 taxes & benefits (15%) 

$2.625,0 administrative expenses and overhead 
S34.2SO.00 

3. Display Design 

4,000. Op Window display supplies & materials 

2.500.00 Display design, development, and set-up (subcontract with HPS Artists) 
. S6.500.O0 

4. "Web Deve|opment, Computer, Presentation Materials, and Supplies 

S2.000.CjO Web Design and management 

51,750.00 DSL subscription 

S 1,750.00 Presentation supplies 

51,250. C|0 Computer for Kiosk 

$1,250.00 toll free hotline number 

51,000.00 Presentation equipment 

S500.6o Software 

$500. QQ misc. supplies 

SI o.ooo. bo 



Administration (provided by the Department of Environment) 

S4.000 QQ Administrative oversight and reporting 



-589,qqft.f]n program total 

Source: Department of Environment 



Attachment II 



BUDGET 



Facility, Display, & Web Management and Referral Services 

Cleanup Information Coordinator 

Display Design 

Computer and AV 

TOTAL 



$34,250 

34,250 

6,500 

10.000 

S3, 000 



WORK PLAN 



MONTHS 


ACTIVITIES 


1 


■ Begin posting notices in window. 

■ Begin window, interior display, & web design 

■ Acquire Furniture &. Equipment for Clearinghouse area 

■ Send requests to Navy, EPA, DTSC, SFDPH for Display and educational 
materials contributions 


2 


■ Install toll free hot line number 

■ Set up computer & video education area 

■ Finalize design details for displays &. web 

■ Test web site, computer & video education area 

■ Organize facility dedication - community reception 

o Organize speakers 
o Mail invitations for facility dedication 

o Outreach to Bayview residents and schools regarding the opening of 
the facility 


3 


■ Install window art work/display materials 

■ Install interior displays 

■ Facility dedication - community reception 

o Mail press releases 

o Morning press conference w/ speakers & demonstration of resources 

o Community event w/ speakers & demonstration of resources 


4 










Carry Out Onaoins Program 

■ Community Updates on Parcel E Fire 

• Community Notification ofCleanup 
Comment Periods 

■ Community Technical Updates on 
Pertinent Cleanup Documents 

■ Visiting Class Education Program 

• Host Meetings of Uocal Emergency 




5 






6 






7 






8 






9 






10 






~TT~ — r -_ 


Planning Committee . 




12 



Deliverables (Year 1) 

■ Window Display &. Updates (Month 3 and ongoing) 

■ Interactive Web Site (Month 3 and ongoing maintenance) 

■ Video & Computer Education Areas (Month 3) 

■ The Toll Free Information & Emergency Hotline Number (Month 3) 
* Visiting Class Education Program (Month 4) 



Source: Department of the Environment 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 6, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Item 2 -File 00-2011 
Department: 

Item: 



Municipal Transportation Agency (MTA) 
Municipal Railway (Muni) 

Ordinance approving: (a) the suspension of fares on 
the Municipal Railway (Muni) on New Year's Eve, (b) 
the creation of a pass for University of San Francisco 
(USF) undergraduate students, and (c) the 
appropriation of $833,296 to fund an increase in 
Muni's budget for diesel fuel for Fiscal Year 2000- 
2001. 



Description of 
New Years Service: 



Estimated Cost 

for New Years Service: 



Comments on 
New Years Service: 



A. Suspension of Muni Fares on New Year's Eve 

The proposed ordinance would authorize the Public 
Transportation Commission (PTC) to provide free 
Muni service to all riders using Muni on New Years 
Eve, from December 31, 2000, beginning at 8:00 p.m., 
until January 1, 2001, ending at 6:00 a.m. 



According to Ms. Gigi Harrington, Deputy General 
Manager for Finance and Administration at Muni, the 
estimated cost to the City to provide the proposed free 
Muni transit service, between 8:00 p.m. on December 
31, 2000 through 6:00 a.m. on January 1, 2001, is 
approximately $58,000. Ms. Harrington states that 
approximately $42,000 of these increased costs would 
result from overtime costs to provide additional Muni 
staff for expanded service and approximately $16,000 
of these increased costs would result from lost fare box 
revenues. 



1. The City offered free Muni transit service on New 
Years Eve in 1998 and 1999. In 1999, Muni estimated 
that the cost of suspending fees on New Years Eve 
would be approximately $100,000, including $50,000 
in overtime costs and $50,000 in lost fare-box 
revenues. According to Ms. Harrington, this year's 
estimated cost of $58,000 of providing free Muni 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 6, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



service on New Years Eve is $42,000 less than last 
year's cost estimate of $100,000 because of additional 
lost fare-box revenues resulting from additional riders 
Muni expected in 1999 for the Millennium celebration. 

2. As stated in the Attachment provided by Muni, in 
1998, radio station KMEL donated $12,500 to partially 
offset the total costs incurred by the City and in 1999, 
KMEL donated $10,000 to the City. As stated in this 
proposed resolution, the City hopes to cover a portion 
of expenses resulting from providing free Muni service 
on New Years Eve with corporate donations. However, 
as of the writing of this report, it is uncertain as to 
whether the City will receive such donations this year, 
according to Ms. Harrington. 



Description of 
USF Student Pass: 



B. Muni Pass for University of San Francisco 
Students 

The proposed ordinance would create a Class Pass for 
University of San Francisco (USF) undergraduate 
students as a five-month pilot program, beginning on 
January 1, 2001 and terminating on June 1, 2001. The 
pass would cost students $12 per month for unlimited 
use of Muni. All 3,700 undergraduate students that 
attend USF would be assessed a $12 fee for the Class 
Pass. 



Estimated Cost 
of Student Pass: 



Ms. Harrington advises that Muni has designed the 
proposed $12 monthly Class Pass for USF students to 
be cost neutral to the City, as stated in the 
Attachment provided by Muni. In October of 2000, 
undergraduate students at USF approved the pilot 
program to include a "Class Pass" fee as part of every 
student's tuition payments. If the Class Pass program 
assesses $12 per month for each of USFs 3,700 
undergraduate students, the Class Program would 
generate approximately $44,400 per month in revenue. 
According to Ms. Harrington, this amount equals the 
estimated $44,400 in revenue Muni currently receives 
from USF students who buy regular-priced Muni Fast 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 6, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Passes every month. Therefore, Ms. Harrington 
advises that the proposed Class Pass Program will not 
cause Muni to lose any revenue. 

Comments on 

Student Pass: 1. The proposed ordinance states that the monthly $12 

Class Pass would allow students unlimited use of 
Muni and BART within the City. However, Ms. 
Harrington advises that the pilot program would only 
allow students use of Muni, and that the BART 
provision was "included as a possible future program 
benefit only and is not intended to represent any 
currently offered program benefit," as stated the 
Attachment. The Budget Analyst recommends that the 
proposed ordinance be amended to delete the provision 
stating that the proposed Class Pass would entitle 
USF undergraduate students to use BART within the 
City. 

2. As stated previously, the proposed $12 monthly 
Class Pass would serve as a as a five-month pilot 
program, beginning on January 1, 2001 and 
terminating on June 1, 2001. According to Ms. 
Harrington, the proposed Class Pass for USF students 
would be the first of such discounted passes Muni has 
offered to college-level students. Ms. Harrington 
advises that Muni would use this five-month trial 
period to evaluate the success of the program. In 
addition, Muni is working with USF students and 
personnel to develop performance measures and 
evaluation criteria by which to assess the Class Pass 
pilot program. Ms. Harrington advises that if Muni 
determines the pilot program to be successful, Muni 
would expand the program to include additional local 
colleges and universities. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 6, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Description of 
Supplemental: 



Source of Funds: 



C. Supplemental Appropriation of $833.296 for Muni 

The proposed ordinance would approve a supplemental 
appropriation of $833,296 for Muni's Fiscal Year 2000- 
01 budget to fund the increased cost of diesel fuel. 
According to Mr. Matthew Hymel of the Controller's 
Office, Muni's FY 2000-01 approved budget for fuel 
was $6,035,492. Muni now anticipates exceeding the 
$6,035,492 budget by $833,296, for a total projected 
expenditure of $6,868,788 for fuel in FY 2000-01. 

According to Ms. Harrington, the proposed 
supplemental appropriation would be funded by 
increased revenue Muni has projected for Fiscal Year 
2000-01. As stated in the Attachment, provided by 
Muni, Muni expects to exceed its FY 2000-01 budgeted 
revenues of $397,969,599 by approximately 
$2,319,140, for estimated total revenues of 
$400,288,739. As shown in the Attachment, the 
$2,319,140 in increased revenues is comprised of an 
estimated $1,200,000 from Passenger Fares, $108,216 
from Paratransit Fare Revenue and $1,010,924 from 
City-owned Parking Garage revenue allocated to 
Muni. 



Comments on 
Supplemental: 



1. As noted above, Muni has requested the proposed 
supplemental appropriation of $833,296 to fund the 
increased cost of diesel fuel. In the Attachment, Muni 
describes the data and the projections it used to 
calculate the estimated deficit of $833,296 in Muni's 
fuel budget. In developing Muni's fuel budget for FY 
2000-01, Ms. Harrington advises that Muni projected 
diesel fuel prices to cost approximately $1.12 per 
gallon in August of 2000, and then to decline through 
the remainder of FY 2000-01. Instead, Ms. Harrington 
advises that average cost of diesel fuel in August of 
2000 rose to $1.34 per gallon. 

2. Ms. Harrington advises that Muni pays market-rate 
for its diesel fuel and uses approximately 5,365,092 
gallons of diesel fuel per year. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



10 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 6, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed ordinance to delete the 

provision stating that the proposed Muni Class Pass 
would entitle USF undergraduate students to use 
BART within the City, in accordance with Comment 
No. 1 related to the USF Class Pass above. 

2. Approval of the proposed suspension of Muni Fares 
on New Year's Eve and the Muni Class Pass for USF 
students is a policy matter for the Board of 
Supervisors. 

3. Approve the proposed supplemental appropriation of 
$833,296 to fund an increase in Muni's budget for 
diesel fuel. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

11 



Attachment 
Page 1 of 5 



iviemoranaum 

To : Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst to the Board of Supervisors 




From: David L. Espa 

Through: Gigi Harrington 

Date: November 30, 2000 

Subject: Request for Information for Finance Committee Meeting Item 8 - File 00-2011 

The purpose of this memorandum is to provide information requested by the Budget 
Analyst for the San Francisco Board of Supervisors about Finance Committee Item 8 - File 
00-2011, a matter pertaining to a) the suspension of Muni fares on New Year's Eve and 
New Year's morning, b) the Class Pass for University of San Francisco students, and c) a 
supplemental appropriation for fuel. 

It should be noted that under the provisions of Proposition E the title of the governing body 
for the Municipal Railway Department (Muni) is the Municipal Transportation Agency 
(MTA) and not the "Public Transportation Commission (PTC)" as indicated on the first page 
of the draft analysis. 

Item A: Suspension of Muni Fares on New Year's Eve and New Year's Morning 
Expanded services. The Muni is planning to maintain its regularly scheduled New Year's 
Eve and New Year's morning service and increase the frequency of public transit services 
on select transit lines, such as Muni Metro, within the projected overtime-cost estimates. 
Muni estimates that overtime costs will be similar to overtime costs incurred for New 
Year's Eve 1998 operations. Adjusted for inflation and collective bargaining changes during 
the last two years, Muni expects to incur approximately $-12,000 in overtime costs for New 
Year's Eve 2000 operations. 

Donations to offset Muni operating costs. As indicated in your write-up, the KMEL radio 
station donated S12.500 in 1998 and $10,000 in 1999 to partially offset Muni costs for 
providing free public transit services within the City and County of San Francisco. At this 
time the Muni is unsure of the amount, if any, that will be donated to offset costs to provide 
free public transit services for the up-coming New year's Eve and New Year's morning, 
however, although Muni is required to report gifts received to the Board of Supervisors, the 
Muni doesn't believe it needs explicit approval by the Board of Supervisors to accept and 
expend the gift. 

Lost fare-box revenues and estimated riderohip. The Muni does not collect "date-specific" or 
"transit-line specific" data to determine ridership uses or fare-box revenue gains or losses. 
Instead the Muni uses National Transit Database operational indices and factors to 
estimate total ridership use of public transit systems, as well as, total revenues generated 
by pubbc transit operations. As a result, we do not have a definitive answer to the question 
about ridership numbers and gained or lost revenues estimates. Ridership estimates 
developed by the Muni are more indicative of the department's macro-level services versus 
micro-level date-specific or transit-line specific operations. As such, our estimates rely on a 
"reasonableness" test to determine ridership use and revenues gained or lost for any one 
event. 

Using Mum data compiled for the month of September 2000, the last full month for which 
data exists, public transit fare revenues, excluding paratransit fares, totaled $7,859,227, of 



12 



Attachment 
Date: November 30, 2000 Page 2 of 5 

which Muni FastPass (adult, discounted, and youth) sales totaled $3,749,794, or 48 percent, 
and cash fares totaled §4,109,433, or 52 percent. 

Reasonableness argument. Based on this information, we conservatively estimate that for 
every 100 patrons that board a Muni public transit vehicle, 48 will have purchased a public 
transit FastPass prior to their trip and 52 will pay cash for their trip (transfers to other 
public transit vehicles axe assumed to be a continuation ox the same trip). Therefore, we 
assume that during the "free-fare" period, for every 100 people that board a Muni public 
transit vehicle, the Muni will loose $52.00. We assume that between 30,000 and 35,000 
people will ride Muni public transit vehicles on New Year's Eve and New Year's morning. 
Based on the percentage of riders who would typically pay cash, we expect to loose about 
$16,000 in fare revenues. 
Item B: Class Pass for University of San Francisco Undergraduate Students 

Cost to provide Class Pass services to students of the University of San Francisco (USF). The 
Muni has endeavored to work with staff of members of the Board of Supervisors to make 
the Class Pass program "cost neutral" to the Muni. The initial pilot program will be a 
cooperative venture between the Muni and the USF and will target the university's roughly 
3,700 undergraduate students. 

Student survey information provided by the university indicates that 86 percent of those 
students surveyed would support a "Class Pass" fee included in their tuition payments for 
public transit services. The Class Pass program was approved by the USF student body in 
October 2000. In addition, 39 percent indicated that they use public transit three or more 
times a week. Based on the $35.00 cost of an adult FastPass, a student would have to use 
public transit in San Francisco an average of 8.3 times per week to break even on his or her 
investment in a Muni FastPass. If we assume that 85 percent of those students that 
currently use public transit three or more times per week also purchase a Muni FastPass, 
then the cost neutral revenue amount for the program is $44,400 per month. The program 
will assess all 3,700 undergraduate students $12.00 per month for Muni public transit 
services and, as a result, the program will generate revenues of $44,400 per month. The 
Muni analysis assumes that on the margin student behavior will change slightly and more 
students will use public transit, but overall student predisposition to use public transit will 
not significantly change. 

Payments to BART for Class Pass use within San Francisco. Although the Muni resolution 
contains a provision to include Class Pass use on Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) 
public transit vehicles, this provision was included as a possible future program benefit 
only and is not intended to represent any currently offered program benefit, or an 
agreement between the Muni and the BART to provide such benefit. 

Other colleges and universities participating in a Class Pass program. Currently, only the 
undergraduate students at the USF have decided to participate in the Class Pass pilot 
program. Because revenue and cost data for the progrnm arc limited, we thought it 
prudent to start with a rather small benefit population to limit the financial risk to the 
Muni and the university. We estimate that appro.ximntely 136,600 students attend public 
and private colleges and universities in San Francisco. A number of colleges and 
universities have expressed interest in a Class Pass program; however, at this time the 
USF represents both a suitable pilot program population and a student body eager to 



Date: November 30, 2000 



Attachment 
Page J ot 5 



initiate the program. The Muni encourages other colleges and universities to participate in 
the Class Pass program, including the graduate students at the USF. Currently, the Muni 
does not offer Class Pass programs or public transit benefits to other colleges and 
universities in San Francisco. 

Pilot program evaluation. The Muni is working with 6tudents and university personnel to 
develop performance measures and evaluation criteria by which to assess the Class Pass 
pilot program. We can provide this information to the Finance Committee, at its request, 
when such performance measures and evaluation criteria are completed. 

Item C: Supplemental Appropriation of SS33,296 for Diesel Fuel 

FY2000 expenditures for fuel. In FY2000, the Muni budgeted $4,543,370 for fuels and 
lubricants to purchase approximately 5.6 million gallons of fuel (expenditures for lubricants 
are insignificant compared to the overall purchase of fuel). The budgeted amount was 
based on an early- 1999 average fuel price of $0.74 to $0.S0 per gallon. By end of 1999 and 
beginning of 2000, the average spot price for diesel fuel had increased to $0.84 per gallon in 
December, $0.89 per gallon in January, and $0.99 per gallon in February. Information 
obtained in February from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) indicated 
that crude oil prices were expected to increase roughly 27 percent, to $27.65 per barrel, 
during the first two quarters of 2000 and remain high until the end of the summer. After 
August and September, crude oil prices were expected to gradually decline through the end 
of 2001 to about $22.50 per barrel. As a result, in FY2000, the Muni reallocated 
approximately $414,000 to provide for unexpected higher fuel expenditures. 
Table 1: MUNI FY2001 Diesel Fuel Cost Projection 



Month 




4 Year Average 


Co. 


o/Gallon 


Total Cost 




Consumption in Gallons 








July 




•1-18,770 




$1.11 


S49S.134 


Aug 




45S.776 




1.12 


513.829 


Sept 




440,681 




1.09 


480.342 


Oct 




4(55,234 




1.03 


502.452 


Nov 




454, 2GS 




1.06 


4S1.524 


Dec 




445,300 




1 02 


451, 20G 


Jan 




425.241 




1 02 


433.745 


Feb 




402.701 




.98 


394,616 


Mar 




469, 5S2 




.95 


446,102 


Apr 




432,237 




.91 


393.336 


May 




474,461 




.88 


417.525 


Jun 




447.843 




M 


375 1S8 


Total 




5,365,092 






$5,392,032 




Initial FY 


2001 Budget for Fuc 


sand I. 


ubricanLa'- 


S4. 713. 050 








Surplu 


sADefkit): 


(3678.073) 



14 



Date: November 30, 2000 



Attachment 
Pa S e 4 of 5 



Translation of EIA projections. The translation of the EIA projections into Muni fuel 
expenditures indicated that the Muni should have expect fuel prices to continue to increase 
to approximately $1.09 per gallon by the end of FY2000 and for the first quarter of FY2001. 
The projection would have established the costs for fuel at roughly $1.11 per gallon in July 
and about $1.12 in August, and then start to decline through the remainder of FY2001. 
Table 1, above, shows the four-year average fuel consumption for the Muni by month and 
the projected cost per gallon. 

Based on this model, the Muni expected a potential FY2001 budget shortfall of about 
$680,000 compared to the FY2000 budgeted amount, including additional appropriations. 
FY2001 expenditures for fuel. During the first quarter of FY2001, the Muni purchased a total 
of 1,335,342 gallons of diesel fuel at an average price of SI. 21 per gallon. Chart 1 below 
shows the average price per gallon of diesel fuel paid by the Muni during the first quarter of 
FY2001. 

Chart 1 

As Chart 1 shows the 
average price per gallon of 
diesel fuel remained 

relatively constant through 
July until mid-August at 
$1.02 and a $1.03, 
respectively, a price variation 
of 5.9 percent. This cost 
range is consistent with the 
earlier projections of the EIA. 
By the end of August, 
average diesel fuel prices 
increased to $1.34 per gallon, 
or 24 percent above the mid- 
August average price of $1.08 

and by mid-September, the average price for diesel fuel reached $1.50 per gallon before 

dropping to $ 1.35 per gallon by the end of September. 

Chart 2 shows the total number of gallons and total expenditures for diesel fuel for invoice- 
periods during the first quarter of FY2001. The significant change in the relationship 
between the number of gallons purchased and total expenditures is driven by l) the 
increase in the average cost per gallon and 2) the change in the number of gallons of diesel 
fuel purchased during the invoice-period for the end of August. During the invoice-period 
for the end of August, when the average price per gallon reached $1.34, the Muni purchased 
264,521 gallons of diesel fuel. This amount is roughly 64,000 gallons more than the number 
gallons purchased during the first invoice-period for August and approximately 77,000 
gallons more than it purchased during the last invoice-period for July. However, when the 
average price of diesel fuel reached its highest first quarter peak at $1.50 per gahon during 
the first invoice-period for September, the Muni reduced the number of gallons of diesel fuel 
purchased to 143,6-17 gallons at a total cost of S216.176. During the last invoice-period for 
September, when the average price of diesel fuel dropped to Si. 35 per gallon, the Muni 
increased its diesel fuel purchases to 260,632 gallons at a total cost of $351,504. ' 



SI.70 
SI JO 

suo 

5LU 
5030 
S0.70 . 
S0.50 


MRD Costs Per Gallon of Diesel Fuel 

























Mkl-Jul CnJ.Jul MH-Aui End-Aug Mil-Scpl 

Pcrlodj Ending 


End-Scpi 



Date: November 30, 2000 



Attachment 
Page 5 of 5 



Chart 2 



Total Gallons and Expenditures for Diesel Fuel 




Efld-luJ MiJ Ao| E-idAut WdScpi fcKl-Stpl 
Ijito let Periods 



Calculation of projected FY2001 fuel budget shortfall. For the first quarter of FY2001, based 
on invoices received, the Muni expended SI. 613. 32-1, or 26.74 percent of it total FY2001 
appropriation for fuels and lubricants. If the Muni continues to spend at this rate it will 
expend $6,453,296 by the end of FY2001. This amount will exceed the Muni appropriation 
of S6, 033, 957 for fuels and lubricants by $419,339, or roughly 7 percent. However, because 
the appropriation includes S4 13,957 for diesel fuel purchases for 6ix months of South of 
Market Area (SOMA) services, the shortfall, based on the current rate of spending, is more 
likely to be SS33.296, or about 15 percent of the total appropriation for fuels and lubricants, 
excluding appropriations for diesel fuel purchases for SOMA. The adjusted shortfall 
amount assumes that sufficient appropriations have been budgeted for diesel fuel 
purchases for SOMA service. 



TOTAL 



16 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 6, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Item 3 - File 00-1996 

Department: Real Estate Division (RED) 

Recreation and Park Department (RPD) 

Item: Resolution authorizing the Director of Property to accept an 

easement deed over private property for accessible access to 
the Peace Plaza in Japantown from Geary Boulevard. 

Easement Amount: No cost to the City other than estimated Title Insurance and 
Escrow Fees of $5,240. 



Location: 



Source of Funds: 



Description: 



The parcel of land affected by the proposed easement is 
located along Geary Boulevard, east from the Japantown 
Peace Plaza and located on private property commonly 
known as Assessor's Block 700, Lot 27. The easement area is 
approximately 612.25 square feet. 

According to Mr. Charlie Dunn from the Real Estate 
Division, the funds for the Title Insurance and Escrow Fees 
will be paid from the RPD's Open Space Operating Funds. 

The proposed resolution would grant the City perpetual 
easement rights, from Miyako Mall, Inc, a California 
corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Kintetsu 
Enterprises Co. of America (the Owner), to the property 
located on Geary Boulevard east of the Japantown Peace 
Plaza. The easement will be used for the purpose of 
constructing and maintaining a walkway, which will provide 
disabled access to the Peace Plaza from Geary Boulevard. 

According to Mr. Dunn, the Recreation and Park Commission 
approved acceptance of the easement on April 20, 2000. 
According to Mr. Dunn, the legislation to accept the 
easement agreement was submitted to the Board of 
Supervisors approximately seven months after the RPD 
Commission approved the easement agreement because of 
the time it took to survey the parcel of land and then to 
create a legal description of the easement area from the 
survey, the time it took to receive approval from the 
Planning Department for the walkway project, the time it 
took to negotiate the easement agreement with the Owner 
and the heavy workload in the RED. Mr. Dunn further 
states that the walkway design is both consistent with the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



1 7 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 6, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Japantown Peace Plaza design and meets ADA (Americans 
with Disabilities Act) requirements. Mr. Kevin Barteaux 
from the RPD advises that Competent Construction, who was 
the low bid in a competitive bid process, was retained to 
construct both the walkway and renovated the Japantown 
Peace Plaza at a cost of approximately $20,000 for the 
walkway and approximately $3,133,000 for the Japantown 
Peace Plaza paid from Redevelopment Funds, Open Space 
Funds, General Funds and private donations. Ms. Laura 
Tanigawa from the Department of Public Works advised that 
construction of the walkway on Geary Boulevard began in 
April of 2000 and should be completed by the end of 
November 2000. Ms. Shannon Maloney of the Department of 
Public Works states that as of the writing of this report the 
walkway is substantially completed with only minor 
corrections to the walkway to be completed such as power 
washing the walkway. 

Comments: 1. According to Mr. Dunn, the Japantown Peace Plaza 

design originally only had disabled person access from Post 
Street. However, in order to meet ADA requirements, RPD 
had to add a second access point from Geary Boulevard, 
which necessitated the subject easement agreement. 

2. The Grant of Easement Agreement provides that the City 
shall indemnify and hold the Owner harmless from any 
losses caused by the City's use of the easement. Mr. Donnell 
Choy of the City Attorney's Office advises that the 
indemnification and hold harmless provisions in the Grant of 
Easement Agreement are not unreasonable and are similar 
to the indemnification and hold harmless provisions 
contained in other easement agreements which the City 
enters into for the use of property. 

3. The proposed resolution authorizes the Director of 
Property to enter into any amendments or modifications to 
the easement agreement that the Director of Property 
determines, in consultation with the City Attorney, are in the 
best interest of the City, do not otherwise materially increase 
the obligation costs or liabilities of the City, are necessary or 
advisable to effectuate the purpose of the easement and are 
in compliance with all applicable laws. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

18 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 6, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



4. The easement agreement also states that the City shall, 
at no cost to the Owner, repair all structural, cosmetic and 
other physical damage to the property owned by the Kintetsu 
Enterprise Co. caused by the construction and use of the 
walkway and that the City shall commence such repairs no 
later than 30 days after the date the City learns of such 
damage. According to Mr. Choy, the inclusion of this 
provision is a standard inclusion that would hold the City 
responsible for any damage done in the construction and use 
of the walkway. 

5. The Department of City Planning has found that the 
proposed acquisition of the easement is in conformity with 
the City's General Plan and consistent with the Eight 
Priority Policies of Planning Code Section 101.1 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

19 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 6, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Items 4 and 5 - Files 00-2007 and 00-2096 



Department: 
Items: 



Location: 
Purpose of Lease: 

Lessor: 
Lessee: 



Department of Human Services (DHS) 

Hearing to consider the release of reserved funds in the 
amount of $453,170 for renovation of the proposed Mission 
Neighborhood Resource Center facility (File 00-2007). 

Resolution authorizing a lease of real property at 165 Capp 
Street on behalf of the Department of Human Services (File 
00-2096). 

165 Capp Street 

To provide a neighborhood homeless drop-in and referral 
center, excluding use as temporary or permanent housing, 
to be operated by a non-profit provider. 

Captmond Lau 

Department of Human Services 



No. of Square Feet and 



Monthly Rental: 



Approximately 6,500 square feet at a monthly rent of 
$13,000 per month ($2.00 per square foot per month) for 
the first 12 months of the subject lease (January 1, 2001 
through December 31, 2001). Rent would increase by four 
percent annually, beginning on January 1, 2002, such that 
by the last year of the lease, in 2010, the monthly rent 
would be $18,503 ($2.85 per square foot per month) or 
$222,036 annually. 



Annual Rental Revenues 

Payable by DHS 

To Lessor: $156,000 for 2001, increasing by four percent annually. 



Source of Funds 
For Lease: 



Term of Lease: 



Right of Renewal: 



General Fund expenditures appropriated in the DHS FY 
2000-01 budget 

January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2010 - Ten Years 

One five-year option to extend at 95 percent of the then fair 
market value of the property, to be determined by formula, 
through independent appraisal. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



20 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 6, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Utilities, Janitorial 
And Maintenance 
Services: 



Insurance: 



Indemnification and 
Hold Harmless: 



The City would be responsible for the cost of electrical, 
telecommunication, scavenger, water and janitorial services 
as well as the maintenance and repair of the exterior paint 
and the normal maintenance and repair of the interior 
premises (See Comment No. 2). 

The City would be responsible for reimbursing the Lessor 
for the cost of property casualty insurance in the amount of 
approximately $2,500 annually (See Comment No. 3). 



According to Mr. Steve Legnitto of the Real Estate Division 
of the Department of Administrative Services, the proposed 
lease will include a clause wherein the City, as the Lessee, 
indemnifies and holds harmless the Lessor from, and 
agrees to defend the Lessor against, any and all claims, 
costs and losses, including without limitation reasonable 
attorney's fees, incurred (a) as a result of the City's use of 
the premises, (b) any default by the City in the performance 
of any of its obligations under the lease, or (c) any acts or 
omissions of the City. 



Tenant 
Improvements: 



Amount of Release 
Of Reserve Funds: 

Source of Funds: 



Under the subject lease, DHS will be required to pay the 
Lessor an additional amount of approximately $577,586 
(See Comment No. 4) in order to complete the necessary 
tenant improvements, including, but not limited to 
telecommunication wiring and equipment, furniture and/or 
furniture installation, additional electrical wiring, 
bathroom and shower facilities, an elevator to comply with 
ADA accessibility requirements, and/or other items 
necessary to the non-profit, Mission Neighborhood Health 
Center's program operation within the premises. 

$453,170 

A General Fund Reserve approved by the Board of 
Supervisors in the amount of $607,519 and reserved by the 
Finance and Labor Committee in the FY 1999-2000 budget 
for the DHS. On May 17, 2000, the Finance and Labor 
Committee released $154,349 of these funds and carried 
forward the remaining $453,170 in reserved funds to the 
DHS FY 2000-01 budget. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



21 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 6, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Description: The proposed ten-year lease (File 00-2096) for DHS would 

provide 6,500 square feet of space to be used as a homeless 
drop-in and referral center operated by the Mission 
Neighborhood Health Center, a non-profit organization, 
that has contracted with DHS for their services in the 
Mission District, at 165 Capp Street, between 16 th and 17 th 
Streets. The proposed request for the release of $453,170 of 
reserved funds (File 00-2007) would enable DHS to 
renovate the proposed leased facility, for use as a Mission 
Neighborhood Resource Center. 

In June of 1999, the DHS Division of Housing and 
Homeless Programs, in partnership with the Department of 
Public Health (DPH) and the Mayor's Office, began a 
community planning process with Mission District 
representatives to develop a Mission Neighborhood 
Resource Center to serve homeless persons and persons at 
risk of homelessness in the North Mission District. 

The proposed Mission Neighborhood Resource Center 
would provide drop-in services, including restrooms, 
showers, snacks, laundry facilities, storage lockers for 
personal possessions, peer counseling, community activities 
and support groups. Additional services would include 
substance abuse and harm reduction services 1 , vocational, 
employment and educational services, and case 
management and advocacy services designed to provide 
clients with a system of support, reduce individual and 
community health risks and offer opportunities to assist 
individuals in stabilizing their lives. 

In February of 2000, DHS issued a Request for Proposals 
(RFP) to plan for and then operate the proposed Mission 
Neighborhood Resource Center. Ms. Katherine Durham of 
DHS advises that this RFP was advertised in the following 
seven newspapers: (1) San Francisco Independent, (2) El 
Bohemia News, (3) Sun Reporter, (4) The Bayview, (5) Bay 
Area Reporter, (6) SF Business Woman, and the (7) Asian 



1 Harm reduction sendees provide counseling and treatment for individuals engaged in high-risk 
behaviors (e.g., drug and alcohol abuse, sexual activities) to minimize the harmful impact of such 
risky behavior on the individual's health. Examples of harm reduction services include counseling on 
safe sex procedures, clean needle exchange programs, substance abuse alternatives and providing 
information on access to shelters for individuals that are living on the streets. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

22 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 6, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Weekly. In addition, Ms. Durham reports that an 
announcement regarding the RFP was placed on the 
Purchaser's website and an announcement was sent to 
DHS's mailing list which contains over 300 contractors. As 
of the writing of this report, Ms. Durham could not provide 
the number of actual RFPs that were issued by DHS to 
prospective proposers. 

In March of 2000, the Mission Neighborhood Health 
Center, acting as the lead agency of a collaborative, was the 
sole respondent to the RFP to operate the proposed Mission 
Neighborhood Resource Center. The Mission Neighborhood 
Health Center collaborative includes the following five non- 
profit organizations: (1) Mission Neighborhood Health 
Center, (2) Mission Mental Health, (3) Mission Council on 
Alcohol Abuse Services for the Spanish Speaking, Inc. (4) 
The Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Collaborative and (5) 
Quan Yin Healing Arts Center. 

On May 17, 2000, the Finance and Labor Committee of the 
Board of Supervisors approved the release of $154,349, of 
the previously established General Fund Reserve of 
$607,519, to be used to identify a site and to provide 
community outreach efforts related to the Mission 
Neighborhood Resource Center. Of the total requested 
release of $154,349, $54,349 was used by the DHS to award 
a planning contract to the Mission Neighborhood Health 
Center to identify a site for the Mission Neighborhood 
Resource Center facility for the period June 1, 2000 
through November 30, 2000 and to provide community 
outreach efforts related to this project. The remaining 
$100,000 released by the Finance and Labor Committee, of 
the total release of $154,349, was to be used for rent 
payments on the proposed facility site. However, Ms. 
Durham advises that DHS has not, to date, expended the 
previously released $100,000 since the 165 Capp Street site 
for the Mission Neighborhood Resource Center facility was 
not identified until September of 2000. 

On November 16, 2000, the Human Services Commission 
approved an amendment to the existing $54,349 contract 
with the Mission Neighborhood Health Center in the 
amount of $912,637 for the 19-month period from December 
1, 2000 through June 30, 2002 to continue their planning 
efforts and to operate the proposed Mission Neighborhood 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



?-\ 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 6, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Resouce Center facility. Ms. Durham advises that DHS 
anticipates that the proposed Mission Neighborhood 
Resource Center will be in operation by May 1, 2001 (See 
Comment No. 5). 

Budget: Attachment 1, provided by Ms. Michele Byrd of DHS, 

provides a preliminary cost estimate of $577,586 for 
renovation work at the proposed leased facility at 165 Capp 
Street. Ms. Byrd advises that the additional $38,000 for the 
alternate price for the roof patio, to be used as a smoking 
patio, shown at the bottom of Attachment 1, is not likely to 
be included since the total projected cost of $577,586, 
already includes a second floor outside deck that can be 
used for smoking on the proposed facility. Ms. Byrd advises 
that the requested $453,170 to be released, plus the 
$100,000 of previously released funds, that have not been 
expended, for a total of $553,170, would be used to fund 
this renovation work at 165 Capp Street. The Budget 
Analyst notes that, even excluding the roof patio for 
smoking, this amount of $553,170 is $24,416 less than the 
total estimated renovation costs of $577,586 (see Comment 
No. 6). 

Ms. Durham advises that the proposed renovations are 
necessary because the 165 Capp Street facility is an owner- 
occupied two-story garment warehouse, that would need to 
be extensively renovated to be converted for use as a 
Neighborhood Resource Center. For example, in addition to 
installing an elevator in the subject two-story facility, the 
proposed renovations would require the construction of a 
kitchen, numerous bathrooms, showers, laundry facilities, 
counseling offices, meeting rooms and examining rooms. 

Comments: 1. As shown in Attachment 2, provided by the DHS, the 

total estimated costs for this project for the 25-month 
period from June 1, 2000 through June 30, 2002 are 
$1,770,276. DHS advises that all of these project costs are 
to be funded with General Fund monies. The project costs 
include the $154,349 in previously released funds for site 
identification and planning and community outreach 
efforts, consisting of the $54,349 planning contract with the 
Mission Neighborhood Health Center and $100,000 for the 
security deposit and rent, which was not previously 
expended, and is now available for funding tenant 
improvements. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

24 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 6, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



In addition, Attachment 2 identifies the $453,170, which is 
the subject of this request to renovate the 165 Capp Street 
facility, and the $912,637 for the new 19-month operations 
contract with the Mission Neighborhood Health Center. 
Assuming a lease start date of December 1, 2000, 
Attachment 2 identifies $91,000 for seven months of rent 
for FY 2000-01 and $159,120 for rent for FY 2001-02. 
However, the Budget Analyst notes that the proposed lease 
would commence on January 1, 2001, instead of December 

1. 2000, such that a one-month savings of rent, or $13,000 
would not be needed for such rent payments in FY 2000-01, 
and such funds would therefore be available for use for the 
proposed one-time renovation cost. 

2. Ms. Durham advises that, as part of the 19-month 
$912,637 operations contract for the Mission Neighborhood 
Resource Center, one full-time maintenance/custodian 
staffperson will be hired to provide the necessary 
maintenance and repair services and $23,280 has been 
included to pay for the necessary utility costs at the 165 
Capp Street facility, as required under the proposed lease. 
Therefore, Ms. Durham reports that the costs for the basic 
utility, janitorial and maintenance requirements contained 
in the subject lease, have already been included in the 
recently approved operations contract with the Mission 
Neighborhood Health Center. 

3. Mr. Legnitto advises that, under the subject lease, the 
DHS would be required to reimburse the landlord for the 
cost of property casualty insurance in the amount of 
approximately $2,500 per year. Over the ten-year period of 
the proposed lease, this would result in a total cost to the 
City of approximately $25,000, which would be paid 
directly by DHS to the landlord. 

4. According to Mr. Legnitto, the City has entered into a 
letter of intent with the landlord and the landlord will be 
responsible for hiring the construction contractor to 
complete the requested renovations, at an estimated cost of 
approximately $577,586 to be paid for by the City. The 
Budget Analyst recommends that the City include a 
maximum amount of $577,586, plus a ten percent 
construction contingency of $57,759, for a total construction 
amount of $635,345 to be paid for the subject renovations. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 6, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Mr. Legnitto advises that the subject renovations would 
become part of the landlord's property at the termination of 
the lease. However, Mr. Legnitto reports that the City will 
not be required to remove such improvements or to restore 
the facility to its original configuration. According to Mr. 
Legnitto, the subject initial lease costs of $2.00 per square 
foot per month for the first 12 months of the lease 
represents the fair market value for the subject property. 
Mr. Legnitto advises, that although the subject property is 
not currently for sale, it is estimated that the cost to 
purchase the subject building would be approximately $1.7 
million. The Budget Analyst notes that excluding the costs 
to renovate the subject building or to operate the proposed 
Mission Neighborhood Resource Center, over the ten year 
period of the proposed lease, the DHS will incur lease costs 
of $1,872,936, or approximately $172,936 more than it 
would cost to purchase the subject building at today's fair 
market value. Assuming a discount rate of seven percent, 
the net present value of such lease payments would be 
$1,287,098, or approximately $412,902 less than the 
potential purchase price. 

5. Mr. Legnitto advises that although the proposed lease 
would begin on January 1, 2001, the proposed renovations 
would not be completed until approximately the end of 
April of 2001. According to Ms. Byrd, this schedule would 
allow for an opening of the proposed Mission Neighborhood 
Resource Center by approximately May 1, 2001, which is 
anticipated in the proposed operations contract with the 
Mission Neighborhood Health Center. Mr. Legnitto reports 
that as a result of delays in the negotiations for the subject 
lease, and in order to keep the lease rates as originally 
negotiated, the City agreed to begin the lease on January 1, 
2001, although the renovations will not be completed until 
approximately the end of April of 2001 and the operation of 
the facility will not begin until approximately May 1, 2001, 
four months later. 

6. The Budget Analyst notes that the preliminary cost 
estimate for the renovations is $577,586, or $24,416 more 
than the available funds of $553,170 ($453,170 of subject 
funds requested for release plus $100,000 in previously 
released unexpended funds). This shortfall does not include 
the additional potential $38,000 for an alternate price for 
the roof patio, which DHS advises is not expected to be 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



26 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 6, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



required. The DHS reports that the preliminary cost 
estimates of $577,586 for the renovation costs were 
prepared by an architect for the Mission Neighborhood 
Health Center, and advises that these preliminary costs are 
subject to revision based on the submittal of bids for the 
actual constructicr work by general contractors. 

7. Attachment 3, provided by Ms. Julie Brenman of DHS 
identifies and breaks down the total $1,800,000 of General 
Fund monies appropriated in the FY 2000-01 DHS budget 
for Resource Centers in the City, including the Mission 
Neighborhood Resource Center. As shown in Attachment 3, 
a total of $531,613 of General Fund monies is available for 
the Mission Neighborhood Resource Center in FY 2000-01. 
This includes the (1) $262,679 contract with the Mission 
Neighborhood Health Center, (2) $91,000 for rent payments 
(which can be reduced by $13,000 as noted in Comment No. 
1 above), (3) $82,175 for the construction costs to cover a 
ten percent contingency of $57,759 plus the $24,416 
previously identified shortfall of funds, (4) 57,759 for 
architectural fees and (5) $38,000 for the smoking patio. 

The Budget Analyst questions the inclusion of $38,000 for 
the alternate roof patio, to be used as a smoking patio, 
when the Budget Analyst was previously advised that this 
roof patio is not likely since a second floor outside deck for 
smoking was already proposed to be included in the facility. 
In addition, the Budget Analyst recommends a $13,000 
reduction for the rent during the month of December, 2000, 
for a total reduction of $51,000 ($38,000 plus $13,000) in 
the subject request. However, Ms. Brenman notes that 
whether or not the roof patio to be used for smoking will be 
constructed will be determined by the Department of 
Building Inspection's (DBI) permit that is ultimately 
approved. In addition, Ms. Brenman advises that the 
budgeted expenses for FY 2000-01 for the City's Resource 
Centers already exceed the total budgeted funds by 
$32,088, such that there may not be sufficient funds 
available to construct the roof patio, or that other 
reductions in contingencies or construction costs will be 
required. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 6, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Recommendations: 1. Reduce the requested release of $453,170 of reserved 
funds by $51,000, including $13,000 for one month of rent 
which will not be needed and $38,000 which would be used 
for a smoking patio on the roof, to $402,170 and continue to 
reserve $51,000 (File 00-2007). 

2. Include a maximum amount of $577,586, plus a ten 
percent construction contingency of $57,759, for a total 
maximum construction cost of $635,345 in the subject lease 
to be reimbursed to the landlord for the subject renovations 
(File 00-2096). 

3. Given that (1) only one agency responded to DHS's RFP, 
(2) the City would enter inro the lease and begin making 
lease payments on January 1, 2001, approximately four 
months before the Mission Neighborhood Resource Center 
is renovated and operational and (3) the renovation costs 
are based on preliminary architectural estimates that are 
subject to revision based on the submittal of bids for the 
actual construction work by general contractors, the Budget 
Analyst considers approval of the proposed lease (File 00- 
2096) and release of $402,170 of reserved funds (File 00- 
2007) to be policy matters for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

28 



NOU- 16-2000 03:02 
Nov-is-2eee Q3ies pm 



DHS HOUSING/HOMELESS PROG 



415 556 2834 



A ttachment 

P. 02/06 



PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE 
MISSION NEIGHBORHOOD RESOURCE CENTER 



COST 



GENERAL CONDITIONS 

DEMOLITION 

CONCRETE RELATED WORK 

ROUGH CARPENTRY 

FINISH CARPENTRY 

CABINETRY 

BUILDING INSULATION 

CAULKING AND SEALANTS 

WOOD DOORS 

FINISH HARDWARE 

ROLL-UP DOORS 

STORE FRONT 

METAL STUDS & DRYWALL 

ACOUSTIC CEILING 

FLOORING & BASE 

PAINTING 

ELEVATOR 

MISC. SPECIALTIES 

HVAC 

PLUMBING 

FIRE PROTECTION 

ELECTRICAL 

KITCHEN EQUIPMENT 



$30,000 

3,080 

1,665 

3,875 

11,645 

31,500 

5,620 

1,200 

7,500 

8,930 

5,000 

7,000 

30,160 

22,572 

33,425 

17,218 

73,000 

4.270 

10,000 

60,160 

15,048 

68,430 

24,300 



SUBTOTAL - DIRECT COST: 5473,596 

BUILDING PERMIT 23,680 

LIABILITY INSURANCE 9,271 

GENERAL CONTRACTORS FEES 71 ,039 



TOTAL PROJECTED COST: $577,588 

ALTERNATE PRICE FOR ROOF PATIO 38,000 



29 



Attachment 2 





SOURCE OF 
FUNDS 
























Original reserve 
lifted 6/00 


This request for 
release of 
reserve 


DHS operating 
budget for 00-01 * 


DHS operating 
budget for 
01-02 


Total 
99/00-01/0 


PURPOSE OF 

FUNDS 
























Planning Contract 


S 54,349 








$54,349 


Security 
Deposit/Rent/ 
Tenant 
Improvements 


$100,000** 


S453.170 


$91,000 (Ve/ir/or 7 
months) 


$159,120* 
(SI 56,000 annual 
rent + 4% 
increase effective 
1/1/02) 


$803,290 


Operations Contract 






$262,679 


649,958 


$912,637 














Total 


S154.349 


$453,170 


S353.679 


$S09,078 


$1,770,276 


* Assumes a lease, with the City and County of San Francisco, effective December 1, 2000 and an Center opening date 
May 1,2001 

** The $100,000 earmarked for security deposit in the original planning contract was not needed and therefore will be 
rolled into construction/renovation. This provision was part of the planning contract. Therefore a total of S553.170 is 
available for construction/renovation. 



30 



Attachment 3 



Resource Center Budgets 

'$ 1,800,000 FY 00-01 Budget 

South Beach Resource Center 

S 726,671 CATS- South Beach contract 
Bayview Resource Center 

$ 463,805 United Council - Bayview contract 

$ 50,000 United Council - Kitchen Supplies/Worker 
Multiple Centers 

$ 10,000 HAP Manuals - resource directory 

$ 50,000 United Council & South Beach - winter staff 
Mission Resource Center 

$ 262,679 MNHC- Mission contract 

$ 91,000 Mission Rent 

S 82,175 Mission Construction (in excess of reserve request; includes 10% contingency) 

S 57,759 Mission Architectural Costs (10% of construction costs) 

S 38,000 Smoking Patio (may have to build depending on DBI ruling) 
?531,613 Total 

$ 1,832,088 Total 

$ (32,088) Difference 

We will absorb the difference either by not doing the smoking patio or by 
not needing the full amount of contingencies. 

Notes: 

The last three items (in red) were not included in the 11/7 memo from T. Rhorer. They are: 

$82,175 is comprised of: 

The actual construction estimate has come in at $577,586, not 5553,170 

We had not previously included the estimate of contingencies at 10% of the construction cost 

In addition, there is a potential $38,000 cost for a smoking patio 

We had not previously included the estimate of architectural fees at 10% of the construction cost 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 6, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Item 6 - File 00-2009 
Department: 

Item: 

Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration 
Board (Rent Board) 

Release of reserves in the amount of $175,000 to 
pay for a Housing Study. 

$175,000 

General Fund Reserve 

In March of 2000, the Board of Supervisors 
approved a supplemental appropriation and placed 
on reserve $175,000 for the Rent Board to conduct a 
comprehensive fact-based socio-economic study of 
housing in San Francisco. The $175,000 was placed 
on reserve pending submission to the Board of 
Supervisors of (a) the selected consultant, (b) the 
estimated number of hours and (c) the hourly rates 
of the selected consultant. 

According to Mr. Joe Grubb of the Rent Board, a 
Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to conduct the 
comprehensive fact-based socio-economic study of 
housing in San Francisco was issued to ten 
applicants on July 10, 2000. Mr. Grubb advises 
that the Rent Board received two responses: (1) Bay 
Area Economics Consulting Team in the total 
amount of $174,940 and (2) John Paxton, a local 
real estate sole practitioner, at the rate of $140 per 
hour, with no cost projection for the entire project. 
The Bay Area Economics Consulting Team 
submitted their response as part of a consortium, 
including (1) Bay Area Economics, a Women 
Business Enterprise (WBE) firm with offices in 
Berkeley and San Francisco, that specializes in 
housing analysis and urban development, (2) Dyett 
& Bhatia, a San Francisco Minority Business 
Enterprise (MBE) firm specializing in urban 
planning, housing and policy analysis, (3) Dr. John 
Landis, a Professor of City and Regional Planning 
at U.C. Berkeley specializing in affordable housing 
and regional growth management and (4) Dr. 
Michael Smith-Heimer, a Professor of City and 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



io 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 6, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Comments: 



Recommendation: 



Regional Planning at U.C. Berkeley specializing in 
affordable housing and finance. 

According to Mr. Grubb, the Bay Area Economics 
Consulting Team was selected to conduct the 
Housing Study because of their superior proposal 
and experience. Attachment I identifies the hourly 
rates that the Bay Area Economics Consulting 
Team will charge for the proposed Housing Study. 
Attachment II identifies the 1,584 total hours that 
the Bay Area Economics Consulting Team would 
allocate to four phases of the proposed study, for a 
total cost of $174,940 or an average hourly rate, 
including expenses, of $110.44. 

1. Mr. Grubb advises that the Bay Area Economics 
Consulting Team intends to meet with the 
interested parties (i.e., tenant organizations and 
apartment owner associations) in an attempt to 
refine the number of issues that are to be addressed 
in the Housing Study. 

2. According to Mr. Grubb, if the proposed request 
for the release of reserved funds is approved, he 
anticipates authorizing the Bay Area Economics 
Consulting Team to begin their work immediately 
and that the proposed Housing Study would be 
completed within approximately one year, or by the 
end of December of 2001. 

Release the reserved funds, as requested. 




Harvey M. Rose 



Supervisor Yee 
Supervisor Bierman 
President Ammiano 
Clerk of the Board 
Controller 
Steve Kawa 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



-M. 



n 

tsri ■ 

1] 



m 



BAE 



Hourly Rates 



Attachment I 



Principal 
Senior Associate 
Associate 
Analyst 



$175.00/hr 

$125.00/hr 

585.00/hr 

$65.00/hr 



! 



Dyett & Bhatia 

Principal 
Senior Associate 
GIS Specialist 
Associate 
Assistant Planner 

Advisors 



6140.00/hr 
585.00/hr 
S72.50/hr 
S70.00/hr 
$57.50/hr 



Dr. John Landis 

Dr. Michael Smith-Heimer 



$175.00/hr 
S175.00/hr 



28 



ID O CO n <t r- 



Attachment II 



o >p 



000-3-0 



■"3- "^ ■* CM 



in in o 

T- T- prj 



co ^r o cm 



co cm o co o 



o o o 



o -^ -3- 00 



o o ^ co o 



CO co ^r o 

CM 



O O CM CM 



CO 00 ■* co •<* 



CM CM -st- 



ir) cm oo io 






to 

O) 



•i CD 
9 -n 



C/) ^ 

0) TO 



ro 



CD 



cm co -ir in 



c S 

<q; ro 

*j Q 
§E 

o co 

§ E 

CO 



Q o 

^. Q 



o 3 ro 

co a 



(S 8 

at 

CO c 

Q < 

.. ^=> 

S: <-) 
co 
<u = 
w o _ 

0. <b 



< X 



CO 



r-- co 



■C J. 



g| 5co 

o 1— -o 

£«! 

fu 5 c o 

is3.a 

to „ o 



oj c o -a 

n on 3 

" o . V) 

;? • ■ <=> 

0. en t- 







r 








t 


Q 








o 


a. 








Q. 


o 








K 


K 






£ 


q: 

en 


CO 
CO 


o 


O 


o 


ra 


^> 


Q. -Q 


Q. 




CD 


CI) 


tq 


o 
OS 


Q 

0J 






5j 


s» 


a 


CD 


o 


o 


o 


a. 

CD 


> 
CO 


IB 


5 

3 


^0 


a. 


a 


£ 


CO 


a. 


,_ 


CM 


CO 




■<— 


' t— 


*— 





> </> > 

- ra h 

to a. £ 



3 ol 



* S 



J UJ h 



to .*5 




City and County of^an Francisco 

fleeting Minutes 
^Finance and Labor Committee 



[All Committees] 

Government Document Section 

Main Library 



Members: Supervisors Leland Yee, Sue Merman, Tom Ammiano 
Clerk: Mary Red 



»-0 J 60 



Wednesday, December 20, 2000 



10:00 AM 
Regular Meeting 



City Hall, Room 263 



Members Present: Leland Y. Yee, Tom Ammiano. 
Members Absent: Sue Bierman. 



MEETING CONVENED 

The meeting convened at 10:10 a.m. 

REGULAR AGENDA 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

DEC 2 8 2000 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



002066 [Pacific Bell Contract] 
Supervisor Katz 

Ordinance approving contract with Pacific Bell providing for the purchase of a variety of telecommunications 
services. 

(Fiscal impact.) 

1 1/20/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Public Utilities and Deregulation Committee. 

12/12/00, TRANSFERRED to Finance and Labor Committee. Transferred at the direction of the President dated December 1 1, 2000. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Liza Lowery, Executive Director, Department 
of Telecommunications and Information Services. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



002112 [Settlement of Claim, Pacific Bell] 
Supervisor Katz 

Resolution authorizing settlement of 14 claims against Pacific Bell in the amount of $825,000 for overcharges 

between September 1987 and February 1998. 

12/4/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Audit and Government Efficiency Committee. 

12/12/00, TRANSFERRED to Finance and Labor Committee. Transferred at the direction of the President dated December 11, 2000. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Julia Friedlander, Deputy City Attorney. 

RECOMMENDED., by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 
Absent: 1 - Bierman 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at S :06 PM on 12/1&V0 



Finance and Labor Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



December 20, 2000 



001944 [Government Funding, $89,000, Department of Environment) 
Supervisors Ammiano, Bierman, Leno 

Ordinance appropriating $89,000 from the General Fund Reserve for the Department of Environment to fund 

the community window on the cleanup of the Hunters Point Shipyard that serves as the central location for the 

community on information, cleanup and emergency alert, for fiscal year 2000-01 . 

10/30/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee 

12/4/00, SUBSTITUTED. Supervisor Ammiano submitted a substitute ordinance bearing new title. 

12/4/00, ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. Sponsor requests this item be scheduled for consideration at the December 6, 

2000 meeting. 

12/6/00, CONTINUED. Heard in Committee. Speakers: Supervisor Ammiano, Angelo King, Southeast Roundtable; Jill Fox, Hunters 

Point Shipyard Restoration Advisory Board, Lynn Brown, Community For Better Environment, Jessie Mason, Scott Madison, Hunters 

Point Shipyard Citizens Advisory Committee; Olen Webb, Bayview Hunters Point Community Advocates; Karen Pierce; Saul Bloom, 

Director, Arc ecology. 

Continued to December 20, 2000. 

Speakers: None. Continued at the request of sponsor. 
CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR by the following vote: 

Ayes; 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Absent; 1 - Bierman 



001798 [Extension of Sunset Clause - Utilization of Bid/RFP process for awarding of Parking Authority lease 
and management contracts] 
Supervisor Newsom 

Ordinance amending Section 17.1 1(a) of the San Francisco Administrative Code to extend the authorization of 
the Parking Authority to utilize a Bid/RFP process for the awarding of all leases and management agreements 
for the use or operation of parking facilities. (Parking and Traffic Department) 
1 1/22/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Ronald Szeto, Acting Director, Parking 
Authority. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



002148 [Amendment to Fiscal Year 00-01 Patient Rates for the Department of Public Health] 

Ordinance amending Part II, Chapter V, of the San Francisco Municipal Code (Health Code) by amending 
Section 128 thereof, to fix patient rates for services furnished by Department of Public Health, effective 
January 1, 2001. (Public Health Department) 
12/6/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Monique Zmuda, Chief Financial Officer, 
Department of Public Health. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



City and County of San Francisco 



Primed at 5:06 PM on 12/26/00 



Finance and Labor Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



December 20, 2000 



002068 [Government Funding, San Francisco General Hospital] 
Mayor 

Ordinance appropriating $1,532,400 from Reserve-designated for one-time expenditures to fund the cost of 
medical and laboratory equipment for the San Francisco General Hospital for fiscal year 2000-01. 

(Fiscal impact.) 

1 1/20/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Monique Zmuda, Chief Financial Officer, 

Department of Public Health. 

RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



002133 [Grant funds to improve services to seriously mentally ill in San Francisco] 
Supervisors Leno, Newsom 

Resolution authorizing the Department of Public Health, Community Mental Health Services, to accept 
retroactively and expend SAMHSA Mental Health Block Grant funds of $2, 1 10,871 from the State Department 
of Mental Health to improve the system of care services for seriously emotionally disturbed children and 
severely mentally ill adults; providing for ratification of action previously taken. (Public Health Department) 
12/4/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. Department requests this item be calendared at the December 
20, 2000 meeting. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Nancy Presson, Community Mental Health 
Services, Department of Public Health. 
RECOMMENDED., by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



001583 [Reserved Funds, Department of Public Health] 

Hearing to consider release of reserved funds, Department of Public Health, (Ordinance No. 308-98, Mangini 

settlement revenue), in the amount of 248,579 to fund Phase III of the tobacco prevention program. (Public 

Health Department) 

1 1/27/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Monique Zmuda, Chief Financial Officer, 

Department of Public Health. Release of reserved funds in the amount of $248,579 approved. 

APPROVED AND FILED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



001959 [Government funding, Airport capital improvement projects] 
Supervisor Newsom 

Ordinance appropriating $671,165,000 of San Francisco International Airport infrastructure Bond proceeds to 

fund various capital improvement projects for fiscal year 2000-2001. (Controller) 

1 1/1/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

1 1/29/00, CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; John Martin, Airport Director. Amended to 

place $212,686, 188 on reserve; new title. 

AMENDED. 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 5:06 PM on 12/26/00 



Finance and Labor Committee 



\feeting Minutes 



December 20, 2000 



Ordinance appropriating $671,165,000 of San Francisco International Airport infrastructure Bond proceeds to 

fund various capital improvement projects for fiscal year 2000-2001; placing $212,686,188 on reserve. 

(Controller) 

RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



001603 [Airport Curbside Management Program] 

Resolution authorizing the Airport Commission ("Commission") to approve the continuation of a contract with 
ShuttlePort/DAJA SFO Joint Venture to operate the Airport Curbside Management Program for up to four 
additional one year options commencing November 15, 2000. (Airport Commission) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

9/1 1/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

9/27/00, CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR. Heard in Committee Speakers: Barry Taranto. United Taxicab Workers. 

1 1/1 5/00, CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; John Martin, Airport Director; Bob Planthold; 
Andrew Fennes, Vice President, Northern California Livery Group; David Lipschultz, Virgin Limousines; Bill 
Wheeler, Blacktie Transportation; Derick, Super Shuttle; Mark Gleason, President, Teamsters Local 665; Bill 
Klinke, Operating Engineers Local 3; Barry Taranto, United Taxicab Workers; Ellis Ross Anderson, Attorney, 
South and East Bay Airport Shuttle. 
TABLED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



001895 [Reserved Funds, Department of the Environment! 

Hearing to consider release of reserved funds, Department of the Environment (Fiscal year 2000-2001 Budget), 

in the amount of $146,244 to implement the department's energy conservation programs. (Environment) 

10/24/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

1 1/29/00, CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR 

Heard in Committee. Speaker: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst. Continued at the request of department. 

CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



002015 [MOU, Amendment No. 2 - International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 6] 

Ordinance implementing Amendment No. 2 to the 1997-2001 Memorandum of Understanding between the 

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 6 and the City and County of San Francisco 

by appending the following list of past practices pursuant to Article VI. C. of the Memorandum of 

Understanding. (Human Resources Department) 

1 1/9/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Alice Villagomez, Deputy Director, Employee 

Relations Division, Department of Human Resources. 

RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 5:06 PM on 1ZK6AX) 



Finance and Labor Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



December 20, 2000 



002055 [Municipal Transportation Agency Board Compensation] 

Resolution establishing compensation for the Municipal Transportation Agency Board of Directors 

commencing on August 1, 2000 in the amount of S300 for each meeting attended, not to exceed 510,800 per 

fiscal year. (Public Transportation Commission) 

1 1/15/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Laura Spanjian, Municipal Railway; Jim 

Chappell, President, SPUR; Jim Haas. 

TABLED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



002048 [Approving San Joaquin River Group Authority Joint Powers Agreement and Division Agreement] 

Resolution approving the San Joaquin River Group Authority Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement and 

Division Agreement and authorizing the President and General Manager of the Public Utilities Commission to 

execute these agreements on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco. (Public Utilities Commission) 

1 1/14/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Ellen Levin, Water Resources and Policy 

Analyst, Public Utilities Commission, Bureau of Strategic and Systems Planning. 

RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



002047 [Reserved Funds, Sheriffs Department] 

Hearing to consider release of reserved funds, Sheriffs Department (Fiscal Year 2000-01 Budget), in the 

amount of $1,279,051 to defray overtime costs. (Sheriff) 

1 1/14/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Michael Hennessey, Sheriff Amended to 

release reserved funds in the amount of $1,379,072. 

APPROVED AND FILED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



002132 [Gift Acceptance, Department of Aging and Adult Services] 
Supervisors Leno, Newsom 

Resolution authorizing the Director of Aging and Adult Services to accept and expend a gift from the San 

Francisco Hospital Council, acting through Health Plus Services, in the amount of $37,000 for the creation of a 

liaison program between the Public Guardian and member hospitals. (Adult and Aging Services) 

2/1/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Ricardo Hernandez, Public 

Administrator/Public Guardian. 

RECOMMENDED., by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 5:06 PM on 1ZC&V0 



Finance anil Labor Committee Meeting Minutes December 20, 2000 

ADJOURNMENT 

The meeting adjourned at 12:15 p. m. 



City and County of San Francisco 6 Printed at S: 06 PM on 12/26/00 



[Budget Analyst Report] 

Susan Horn 

Main Library-Govt. Doc. Section 



3 

J 24/ 00 



CITY AND COUNTY 




OF SAN FRANCISCO 



''SAN 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 



BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 554-7642 

FAX (415) 252-0461 



DEC 2 2000 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



December 14, 2000 

TO: - Finance and Labor Committee 

FROM: Budget Analyst 

SUBJECT: December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Item 1 - File 00-2066 



Department: 
Item: 

Description: 



Department of Telecommunications and Information 
Services (DTIS) 

Ordinance approving amendments to the City's 
telecommunications contract with Pacific Bell, providing 
for the purchase of a variety of telecommunications 
services. 

On June 26, 1990, the City signed a contract with the 
Pacific Bell Telephone Company (Pacific Bell), and its 
business units and affiliates, for telecommunications 
services to be provided to the City. Current addenda to 
this telecommunications contract are due to expire on 
December 30, 2000 1 . Under the subject resolution, this 



1 According to Ms. Julia Friedlander of the City Attorney's Office, the Master Agreement for 
Provision, Installation, and Maintenance of Telecommunications Service has no fixed duration and 
no contract amount. In 1990 Pacific Bell was the only provider of most telecommunications services 
in the heavily regulated California local telecommunications market. Its prices were set by tariff, 
under terms and conditions regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), and the 
City purchased services without contracts at tariff rates. Since 1990, the City has progressively 
negotiated prices which are lower than the tariff rates by means of City-specific contracts or 
purchase orders under State of California contracts. These contracts are in the form of addenda to 
the Master Agreement, or Authorizations to Order (ATOs), and they have had terms of varying 
lengths (typically three to five years). The most recent addenda have an expiration date of December 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

telecommunications contract would be amended to 
encompass a wider range of services. The amended 
telecommunications contract would comprise: 

• An amended Master Agreement for Provision, 
Installation, and Maintenance of Telecommunications 
Service (Master Agreement) which sets out the general 
terms for the City's purchase of services from Pacific 
Bell. 

• Four new Authorizations to Order (ATOs) which 
provide for the purchase of particular additional 
services. 

• Three new addenda which provide for the purchase of 
particular additional services. 

The specific telecommunications contract amendments 
proposed by the subject resolution are as follows: 

• Amendment No. 2 to the Master Agreement : this 
would update the Master Agreement to include 
current standard City contract terms. 

• Amendment No. 3 to Exhibit C of the Master 
Agreement : this would update Exhibit C of the Master 
Agreement to include current standard City contract 
terms. 

• Four ATOs : these would provide for the purchase of 
the business access line, local call, local toll call, frame 
relay, and Centrex services 2 for a period of five years 
under a competitively bid contract entered into on 



30, 2000, but the Master Contract itself is ongoing. Once the addenda expire, however, there would 
be no governing price vehicle in place to maintain existing prices. 

In response to a question by the Budget Analyst regarding Board of Supervisors approval for the 
Master Agreement, Ms. Friedlander advises that the historic records are inconclusive, but appear to 
suggest that the Board of Supervisors did not consider the Master Agreement in 1990. Ms. 
Friedlander suggests that this might have been because the Master Agreement was interpreted as a 
master set of terms for the purchase of services and did not commit the City to purchase any 
particular services for any particular duration at any particular time. According to DTIS staff, 
subsequent addenda have also not been subject to Board of Supervisors approval because they were 
secured under a State of California contract which preceded the current CalNet Contract. 
2 The Pacific Bell Measured Business Access Line Service gives government customers access to 
Pacific Bell's local call and local toll call network, and to long distance carrier networks. Frame 
Relay and Asynchronous Transfer Mode Services are high speed, wide area, data transfer services 
intended for data applications which are characterized by bursts of traffic across a wide geographical 
area. The Centrex Service is a central office-based communications system capable of receiving 
direct in-dialed and direct out-dialed calls. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Annual Cost to the 
City of the Amended 
Contract: 



December 4, 1998 between the State of California, 
Pacific Bell, and MCI/Worldcom (CalNet Contract). 
Addendum 12 : this would extend existing 

arrangements by providing for the purchase of PBX 
trunk, advanced digital network, high capacity, super 
trunk, and primary rate integrated services 3 for a 
period of three years. 

Addendum 13 : this would extend existing 

arrangements by providing for the purchase of voice 
mail and call management services 4 for a period of 
three years. 

Addendum 14 : this would extend existing 

arrangements by providing for the purchase of 
internet access services for a period of three years. 



If the current volume and mix of telecommunications 
services purchased by the City remained the same, the 
annual cost to the City of the amended contract would be 
an estimated $4,480,477 per year, as shown in 
Attachment I, provided by DTIS. This estimated cost, 
based on an annualization of contract costs in April of 
2000, represents an estimated saving of $851,536 per year 
over the current estimated annual cost of $5,332,013. 



According to DTIS staff, the costs shown in Attachment I 
are based on the annualization of one month's costs 
because: 



The City's telecommunications service usage varies 
enormously month by month due to special events 
(such as elections, large public occasions, or 
departmental relocations). DTIS staff advise that 
April of 2000 represented a reasonably "average" 
month in that there were no special events held during 
it. This monthly service usage variation, combined 



3 The PBX Trunk Service connects a user's private branch exchange (PBX) to Pacific Bell's software 
and the public telephone network. The Advanced Digital Network Service provides low speed data 
transmission. The High Capacity Service provides moderate speed voice and data transmission. The 
Super Trunk Service uses a high capacity line to provide multiple digital channels to private voice 
and data transmission software. The Primary Rate Integrated Service provides high speed 
transmission of voice, data, video, and other forms of customer information. 

4 The Voice Mail Service provides messaging services. The Call Management Service provides voice 
mail, announcement, interactive audiotext, call routing, and voice response services. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

with the significant overall growth in service usage, 
renders annual comparisons meaningless. 
• The service inventories which formed the basis of the 
contract negotiations between the City and Pacific Bell 
(see Comment No. 3) were based on a set of 
"snapshots" of individual months of the City's service 
expenditures. These samples were taken at varying 
points during the contract negotiations to verify their 
accuracy. 

Comments: Contract scope and cost 

1. Mr. Shawn Allison of DTIS states that the Pacific Bell 
contract provides telecommunications services to (a) 62 
client departments, (b) additional organizations which 
receive services included under the terms of that contract 
(for example, the Zoo and the Museums of Fine Arts), and 
(c) mission-critical telecommunications services such as 
911 calls. These telecommunications services are spread 
out over more than 300 public buildings, comprising 
thousands of pieces of telecommunications equipment, in 
San Francisco, on the Peninsula, and at the City's Sunol 
and Hetch Hetchy facilities. 

2. As noted above, the costs shown in Attachment I are 
based on the annualization of one month's costs. The 
savings projected in Attachment I are therefore based on 
the current mix and volume of telecommunications 
services used by the City. As shown in Attachment I, 
DTIS staff estimate that the proposed contract 
amendments would result in aggregate savings to the 
City of approximately 16 percent, for its current mix and 
volume of services. Mr. Brian Roberts of DTIS notes that 
the percentage change in cost for each service is not 
uniform, but varies from service to service, so that the 
actual overall percentage reduction would depend on the 
mix of services purchased by the City. Furthermore, the 
total volume of services is constantly growing, so the 
reduced per unit rates might not result in reduced 
spending for telecommunications services overall. 
However, if the City's volume and mix of 
telecommunications services did not change, the proposed 
contract amendments would result in savings of 
approximately $851,536 per year, from an estimated 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

4 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



$5,332,013 to an estimated $4,480,477 per year. DTIS 
staff note that the City's actual purchases under the 
amended contract would cost less per unit than it would 
have cost if it had been purchased under the existing 
contract (with the exception of voice mail services, as 
explained in Comment No. 18). 

3. According to Mr. Allison, the estimated reduction in 
contract cost reflects DTIS's improved inventory of City 
departments' voice and data transmission use. DTIS 
began the process of developing and monitoring this 
inventory in December of 1999. At the same time, Pacific 
Bell developed an improved inventory of the voice and 
data transmission services for which it bills the City. By 
being able to compare the two complete inventories for the 
first time, Mr. Allison states that the City is able to 
negotiate lower rates for its telecommunications services 
due to the overall volume of the voice and data 
transmission services it is using. According to Mr. 
Allison, this comparison had not occurred earlier because, 
prior to the creation of DTIS in FY 1997-98, the City's 
telecommunications services had been managed by a 
number of different departments and no single 
department had responsibility for the telecommunications 
services being consumed by the City. Consequently, no 
single department had been responsible for identifying 
departments' needs, or for determining potential 
economies of scale. 

4. Mr. Allison states that if the Board of Supervisors does 
not approve the subject contract amendments, then 
Pacific Bell would commence charging its standard, non- 
discounted tariff rates 5 beginning January 1, 2001. This 
would cost the City approximately $6,550,000 per year, an 
approximately 46.2 percent increase over the proposed 
contract cost of $4,480,477 per year shown in Attachment 
I which is based on annualization of the service usage and 
mix in April of 2000. 



5 According to Mr. Roberts, the tariff rate is a statewide, generally available published scale of rates 
and charges established by Pacific Bell and approved by the California Public Utilities Commission. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

City telecommunications planning 



5. The Telecommunications Commission and DTIS are 
currently developing the City's Comprehensive 
Telecommunications Plan. According to DTIS, the City's 
Comprehensive Telecommunications Plan will provide 
strategic direction for the City's future 
telecommunications procurement decisions by developing 
an inventory of the City's telecommunications needs, 
considering how the City could enhance the efficiency of 
its telecommunications usage, and analyzing the financial 
impact and feasibility of a number of future options for 
procuring telecommunications services. These options 
include dividing the services among providers, purchasing 
a full bundle of services from a competitive provider, 
and/or providing some services through the City's own 
infrastructure. 

6. DTIS began working on its Comprehensive 
Telecommunications Plan in late 1997 with a survey to 
identify telecommunications carriers available in San 
Francisco. This resulted in a report, Survey of 
Telecommunications Companies Doing Business in San 
Francisco (December, 1998), researched by the Media 
Connections Group between late 1997 and late 1998. 
However, due to DTIS staffing changes and other 
research related to the plan, an RFP process for a 
comprehensive survey of all City departments' 
telecommunications needs was not released until August 
of 1999. RCC Consulting, the successful contractor, did 
not begin the survey until 2000. According to Mr. 
Roberts, for the Comprehensive Telecommunications Plan 
to have been useful during the City's contract 
negotiations with Pacific Bell, it would have had to be 
complete by late 1999. Instead, the plan is due to be 
completed in early 2001. After that, DTIS estimates that 
it will take a further 24 months to complete a 
comprehensive competitive bid process to determine the 
City's future telecommunications service providers. Mr. 
Allison and Mr. Roberts state that this 24-month 
timeframe reflects: 

• The City's complexity as a client (see Comment No. 1 
above). 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



• DTIS's need to complete a detailed assessment of 
client departments. 

• The time required to write and release a 
comprehensive RFP. 

• The time it would take bidding vendors to develop 
well considered bids, given the complexity of the 
project. 

7. According to Mr. Allison, given the complexity of the 
City's network, if the winner of the above RFP process is a 
company other than Pacific Bell, the implementation time 
to install new facilities and telephone numbers would 
take a further nine to 12 months, at a minimum. 

Competition 

8. According to DTIS, while some of the services included 
in the subject telecommunications contract and its 
proposed amendments are individually competitively 
available today, at least within specific City locations, the 
full bundle of telecommunications services required by the 
City are not currently available from a single provider 
other than Pacific Bell. Mr. Roberts advises that this 
assessment was made through: 

• The competitive bid process undertaken by the State of 
California in 1998 to establish the CalNet Contract. 
This contract was awarded by the State of California 
to Pacific Bell and MCI/Worldcom. 

• The Survey of Telecommunications Companies Doing 
Business in San Francisco (December, 1998), noted 
above. This survey report found that Pacific Bell 
competitors served only a small fraction of the City's 
geographic area. While some of these carriers have 
expanded their networks since 1998, they still only 
cover a small fraction of the City's geographic area. 

• The facts that (a) only a limited number of 
telecommunications services (for example, internet 
access services) can be split off from the underlying 
network services, and (b) many competitor 
telecommunications companies would have to lease 
portions of their communications infrastructure from 
Pacific Bell. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



DTIS's April of 1999 experience in attempting to 
competitively bid voice management services. No 
proposals were received due to the complexity of the 
services required by the City. 

Concern that splitting up the City's 
telecommunications needs would result in competing 
telecommunications companies providing services in 
high-density areas within the City, while low-density 
and outlying areas would have to be serviced by Pacific 
Bell, which would take these increased costs into 
account in any rates it offered the City. 
Concern that contracting with a number of 
telecommunications service vendors would 

significantly increase DTIS's administration and 
accounting costs. According to Mr. Allison, Pacific Bell 
currently provides an integrated process for ordering 
new services, as well as a single number on which to 
report service problems. This results in easy access for 
DTIS and client departments which generate 
approximately 1,000 orders per month and varying 
numbers of problem reports. Mr. Allison asserts that 
dividing this workload amongst several vendors would 
require at least two to four new DTIS staff to 
distribute orders and problem reports to the correct 
vendors, and to deal with the increased complexity of 
the billing process and the concomitant increase in 
billing errors. DTIS staff advise telecommunications 
vendors do not coordinate orders between their 
systems in order to automate the billing process, have 
difficulty in developing ordering and billing systems 
which accurately reflect the services used, and 
sometimes still rely on paper-based systems. DTIS 
staff state that it is the customers who must 
accurately distribute orders for specific services to the 
appropriate vendor 6 . 

Pacific Bell has committed to supporting the City's 
contract through its Major Accounts Center (see 
Comment No. 23 below). A reduction in the City's 
expenditure on Pacific Bell services would result in 
Pacific Bell discontinuing this higher level of contract 



6 There are third-party companies which provide network management services. If the City 
contracted with three telecommunications service providers, such a company could manage the more 
complicated ordering and billing procedures which would result. However, DTIS staff advise that 
such a contract would cost between $1,000,000 and $2,000,000 annually. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



support, thereby increasing the reliance on DTIS 
facilities and maintenance staff. 

9. Based on the above issues, DTIS believes that 
purchasing telecommunications services as a bundle from 
one provider for between three and five years provides the 
City with an opportunity to decide how best to procure 
telecommunications services in the future, given ongoing 
changes to the telecommunications marketplace. 
Consequently, it chose not to conduct a RFP process to 
determine the provision of telecommunications services to 
the City for the near future. Instead, DTIS attempted to 
negotiate an interim contract with Pacific Bell for as short 
a contract extension as possible. DTIS initially aimed for 
a two-year extension, but Pacific Bell's price offerings for 
that timeframe were unacceptably high. 

In all, Pacific Bell made five price offerings. The last, 
which is the subject of this proposed ordinance, comprises 
two sets of services: 

• For traditional voice services (business access line, 
local call, local toll call, and Centrex services), plus 
certain frame relay services, Pacific Bell proposes that 
the City use the existing CalNet Contract for five 
years (see Comments No. 12 through 14 below). 

• For PBX trunk, advanced digital network, high 
capacity super trunk, primary rate integrated, voice 
mail, call management, internet access services, and 
those frame relay services which are not offered under 
the CalNet Contract, Pacific Bell proposes that the 
City enter into three-year contracts (see Comments 
No. 15 through 21 below). 

Attachment II, provided by Ms. Liza Lowery, Executive 
Director of DTIS, explains DTIS's negotiating strategy. 
Ms. Lowery states that DTIS chose its approach because 
(a) Pacific Bell is the only company which can currently 
meet the City's telecommunications needs, (b) DTIS 
currently does not have all the information it requires 
about the City's telecommunications needs, and (c) DTIS 
is exploring the future option of providing some of its own 
telecommunications services. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Amendments No. 2 and 3 



10. Amendment No. 2 to the Master Agreement would 
update the standard terms and conditions to meet current 
City contracting requirements and policies with regard to 
warranty and liability, insurance, default and remedies, 
termination, use of documentation, and compliance with 
laws. 

11. Amendment No. 3 to Exhibit C of the Master 
Agreement would ensure that Pacific Bell complies with 
standard City contract terms related, for example, to 
termination in the event of non-appropriation, guaranteed 
maximum costs, qualified personnel, audit, MBE/WBE 
utilization, non-discrimination, and compliance with the 
Minimum Compensation Ordinance. 

Four ATOs (CalNet Contract) 

12. For traditional voice services (business access line, 
local call, local toll call, and Centrex services), DTIS 
recommends use of the existing CalNet Contract between 
the State of California, Pacific Bell, and MCI/Worldcom. 
DTIS recommends that the City use the CalNet Contract 
for five years, rather than replicating the three-year 
terms proposed under Addenda No. 12, 13, and 14 for 
newer telecom services, because: 

• Flexibility is less important because the services 
provided under the CalNet Contract (for example, 
outdated services such as Centrex services) might be 
replaced by alternative services. 

• Future competitive opportunities are more unlikely as 
these markets have attracted fewer competitors. 

• The very expensive infrastructure required for these 
services is already in place. 

• CalNet Contract prices are annually audited by 
independent communications analysts, such as the 
Gartner Group, and then negotiated between Pacific 
Bell and the State of California Department of General 
Services, to ensure that its customers are being offered 
the best possible prices relative to competitive 
offerings. The CalNet Contract has a "most favored 
nations" clause which ensures that Pacific Bell offers 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

its CalNet Contract customers rates which are at least 
as low as the rates it offers any other organization 
with equal or lower volume of business for comparable 
services. According to Mr. Roberts, the "most favored 
nation" provision is retroactive to the time that a new, 
lower price was offered to another customer. Under 
this system, a CalNet customer receives a credit for 
the period between the time when Pacific Bell offers 
the other customer the new price and the time that the 
CalNet Contract rates are reduced. 

Local agencies can sign on to the CalNet Contract without 
any minimum commitment for revenue or quantity of 
services in order to benefit from the lower prices 
associated with that contract. Therefore the CalNet 
Contract would allow the City to reduce the volume of 
service purchased under that contract without penalty, so 
long as the City retains use of at least one service in each 
of the four CalNet Contract ATOs. 

13. Under the proposed amendments to the Pacific Bell 
contract, there would be four five-year ATOs covering the 
following CalNet Contract services: 

• Business access lines. 

• Local calls and local toll calls. 

• Frame relay services. 

• Centrex services. 

In line with the State of California's standard contract 
language, each of these five-year ATOs is subject to two, 
one-year extensions which will each occur automatically 
unless the City provides Pacific Bell with 30 days notice 
prior to the scheduled expiration date of the initial five- 
year term and the first one-year extension. If the City 
terminates an ATO prior to its expiration date, the City 
shall pay a termination charge based on 65 percent of the 
City's highest bill for the disconnected service multiplied 
by the number of months remaining in the ATO's term. 
This termination charge would not apply if the City 
terminated a service on the basis of non-appropriation of 
the necessary funds. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

14. Under the subject contract amendments, a majority 
of the City's telecommunications services, in terms of cost, 
would be purchased through the CalNet Contract. As 
shown in Attachment I, based on the current volume and 
mix of services, the City would save $740,564 per year, or 
approximately 23.3 percent, by purchasing these services 
through the CalNet Contract. (This figure excludes those 
telecommunications services purchased under Addenda 
No. 12, 13, and 14, as discussed below.) 

Addenda No. 12. 13. and 14 

15. These three addenda cover PBX trunk, advanced 
digital network, high capacity super trunk, primary rate 
integrated, voice mail, call management, and internet 
access services, plus those frame relay services which 
hare not offered through the CalNet Contract. According 
to Mr. Roberts, DTIS recommends using the three-year 
contracts contained in the proposed addenda, because: 

• Flexibility is important in order to take advantage of 
opportunities to reduce cost and improve service by 
utilizing the City's telecommunications infrastructure 7 
and increasing the City's use of competing 
telecommunications companies in the future. 

• In the future, competing telecommunications 
companies are likely to increase their geographic 
coverage and service scope within San Francisco. 

Mr. Roberts states that these contracts have not been 
competitively bid because competitive vendors currently 
do not cover a sufficient geographic area to provide 
comprehensive services to all City departments. 

16. Mr. Roberts states that the total estimated 
expenditure on these addenda over three years, based on 
current service volumes, is $6,143,000. However, 



7 According to Mr. Roberts, the City has access to a variety of telecommunications assets through its 
agreements with franchise holders AT&T, PG & E, and RCN. These assets include conduits owned 
by each of the three companies through which the City can install its own fiber-optic cable facilities. 
Through its franchise agreement with RCN, the City can also connect its fiber optic cables to 
individual City buildings. According to Mr. Roberts, this makes it a very real possibility for the City 
to provide some part of its own telecommunications services in the future. DTIS staff are currently 
working on developing this option further. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



contractually, the minimum revenue commitment for that 
period is a smaller amount of $5, 040,465 s . 

17. The City's minimum annual revenue commitment 
under Addendum 12 is $1,548,755 based on service prices 
contained in Addendum 12. According to Mr. Roberts, 
any future alteration to the minimum annual revenue 
commitment would have to be through mutual agreement 
between the City and Pacific Bell. There is no provision 
for automatic increases. The charge for early termination 
of Addendum 12 services would be 65 percent of the City's 
monthly-equivalent revenue commitment multiplied by 
the number of months remaining in the term of 
Addendum 12, plus any annual revenue commitment 
shortfall up to and including the termination date. 

18. Based on the minimum service quantity to be 
purchased by the City under Addendum 13, the City's 
minimum annual revenue commitment under Addendum 
13 is estimated to be $131,400 based on service rates and 
charges contained in that addendum. According to Mr. 
Roberts, any future alteration to the minimum annual 
revenue commitment would have to be through mutual 
agreement between the City and Pacific Bell. There is no 
provision for automatic increases. The charge for early 
termination of Addendum 13 services would be 75 percent 
of the City's minimum monthly recurring charge 
multiplied by the number of remaining months in the 
term of Addendum 13. 

As shown in Attachment I, there will be an increase in the 
per unit cost associated with Addendum 13 voice mail 
services. According to DTIS staff, Pacific Bell has 
increased the rate because (a) the current rate is much 
lower than the CalNet Contract rate, and (b) the City 
projects flat usage of voice mail services in the immediate 
future, with reduced usage in the longer term, due to the 
City's self-provision of voice mail services. According to 
Mr. Roberts, the proposed rate is still lower than the 
CalNet Contract rate because the City obtains a different 
mix of voice mail features than the State. 



8 The three-year minimum revenue commitment of $5,040,465 comprises: 

• $4,646,265 for three years of Addendum 12 services ($1,548,755 x 3 years). 

• $394,200 for three years of Addendum 13 services ($131,400 x 3 years). 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



19. There is no minimum revenue commitment under 
Addendum 14. However, once the City orders a service 
under this Addendum, the City would be required to 
retain that service for the life of the Addendum unless it 
was prepared to pay the penalty charge for early 
termination. This charge would be 65 percent of the 
monthly recurring charge for Addendum 14 services 
multiplied by the number of months remaining in the 
term of Addendum 14, plus installation charges waived, if 
any. 

As indicated in Attachment I, there is pending action to 
lower the CalNet Contract internet access rate. According 
to DTIS staff, Pacific Bell has initiated the process to 
lower the rate. 

20. According to Mr. Allison, the City has an average of 
seven to 11 percent growth rate each year in its voice and 
data transmission services. Therefore, it could split off 
services provided by Pacific Bell under the three Addenda 
and have them provided by competitors, while still 
maintaining the minimum annual revenue commitments 
required by Addenda 12 and 13. 

21. As shown in Attachment I, if the volume and mix of 
services provided under each of the three Addenda 
remained the same, the prices proposed by the amended 
contract would reduce the annualized cost for those 
telecommunications services by $110,972, or 
approximately 5.1 percent. Based on Attachment I's 
annualized costs for the current volume and mix of 
services, the City would save $124,292 per year, or 
approximately 6.6 percent, in aggregate by purchasing 
telecommunications services under Addenda No. 12 and 
14. However, under Addendum 13 the City would pay an 
additional $13,320 per year, or approximately 4.9 percent, 
for its voice mail services. 

Service Level Commitments and Procedures 
Manual 

22. The proposed contract amendments also incorporate 
by reference a Service Level Commitments and 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Procedures Manual (the Manual), dated July 27, 2000, 
which DTIS believes addresses City departments' 
concerns about Pacific Bell service levels. These issues 
are the subject of a settlement agreement which is also 
being considered by the Finance and Labor Committee's 
December 20, 2000 meeting (Item 2, File 00-2112). Under 
the proposed settlement agreement, Pacific Bell will settle 
City claims concerning alleged billing errors or 
overcharges by paying $825,000. 

23. To prevent reoccurrence of billing and service 
problems, the Manual provides for: 

• A single point of contact. 

• Access to Pacific Bell's highest quality service center, 
the Major Accounts Center, which handles the top 100 
Pacific Bell accounts in the Bav Area. 

• A process for escalating problems which are not 
expeditiously resolved by the Major Accounts Center. 

• A Protocol for Engagement for the placement, 
processing, confirmation, tracking, and billing of 
orders. 

• A monthly inventory check through linked City and 
Pacific Bell software. 

Summary: The proposed ordinance would amend the City's existing 

contract with Pacific Bell for a variety of 
telecommunications services. Based on the current 
volume and mix of telecommunications services 
purchased by the City from Pacific Bell, the amended 
contract would decrease the City's aggregate costs by 16 
percent, or $851,536 annually. However, because the 
percentage change in cost for each service is not uniform, 
but varies from service to service, the actual overall 
percentage reduction would depend on the mix of services 
actually purchased by the City. Furthermore, the total 
volume of services is constantly growing, so the reduced 
per unit rates might not result in reduced spending for 
telecommunications services overall. However, if the 
City's volume and mix of telecommunications services did 
not change, the proposed contract amendments would 
result in savings of approximately $851,536 per year, 
from an estimated $5,332,013 to an estimated $4,480,477 
per year. Even if no lump sum saving results from the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



proposed contract amendments due to service volume and 
mix changes, whatever the City purchases under the 
amended contract would cost less per unit than it would 
have cost if it had been purchased under the existing 
contract (with the exception of voice mail services, as 
explained in Comment No. 18). 

If the proposed ordinance is approved, the City's ongoing 
contractual relationship with Pacific Bell would reflect 
the facts that (a) Pacific Bell is the only company which 
can currently meet the City's telecommunications needs, 

(b) DTIS currently does not have all the information it 
requires about the City's telecommunications needs, and 

(c) DTIS is exploring the future option of the City 
providing some of its own telecommunications services. 

While DTIS originally pursued two-year contract 
extensions for all telecommunications services, Pacific 
Bell's pricing for that timeframe was too expensive. 
Pacific Bell's offer to provide all services through the less 
expensive five-year CalNet Contract did not meet DTIS's 
desire for shorter-term contract extensions. Therefore, 
DTIS negotiated a compromise position whereby it 
contracts for more traditional services under the five-year 
CalNet Contract, and for new technologies under City- 
specific, three-year contract extensions (Addenda 12, 13, 
and 14). 

Based on (a) the fact that the proposed amended contract 
for telecommunications services reduces the unit costs for 
services the City currently receives by 16 percent, and (b) 
the DTIS explanation that alternative services are not 
likely to be competitive in the near-term, the Budget 
Analyst recommends approval of the proposed ordinance. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed ordinance. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Attachment I 



= o- 



« -5 
■o c 

J* O 



< -e 



o 
o 

(/> 

tmim 

O 

c 

05 



c 
<s 

CO 

o 

c 

3 
O 

o 

c 

CO 

O 



■_ E 



& § § 

» S .C 



cfiiZ 
> \" "55 

13 B 0> 

CO S C 

08 >- ll 

it n « 

— ■ in 

1ft c 

fc: cn .5 

o. o H> 
S 7. , S3 

E ii a 

i is 

o s o 



rJS 


S? 


s? 


S? 


S? 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


O 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


a 


o 


o 


n 


to 


to 


60 


to 


co 


?5 


n? 


s? 


S? 


n? 


CO 


<* 


r>- 


o 


CD 


03. 


N 


o 


m 


N 


CJI 


■* 


T 
















( 1 


r^ 


CN 


a) 


(C 


m 


** 


CI 


■* 




h- 


CN 


CO 


CN 


in 


T— 


CJ) 


,— 


CO 


^r 


P3 


C 3 


co 




ifl 


M" 


<M 


to 


Ui 


to 


60 


CO 


















en 


cn 


^r 


CO 


O 


'!) 


eo 


OJ 




CM 


*» 


CO 


LD 




xT 


cn 


rn 


cm 




CO 


(ij 


^d- 








CO 


r^ 








s. 


N 








G) 










T- 


e'- 


<n 


cn 


■r- 


r^ 


en 


CM 


^r 


r^ 


01 


•tf 


O 


LD 


in 


m 


CN 


in 


CO 


in 




M 


co 


in 


cn 


c I 


CM 


CN 


CN 


en 


T _ 


to 


eo 


co 


co 


» 










T- 


S 


O 


cn 


,— 


r^ 


cn 


CN 


■* 


N 


as 


>* 


o 


in 


m 


LD 


CM 


in 


CO 


in 




cn 


co 


in 


CO 


CI 


CM 


CN 


CM 


CD 


,_ 


to 


t/> 


to 


(*3 


to 










,— 


"* 


CN 


CD 


N 


CM 


Tf 


CN 


CI) 


CI) 


r- 


r^ 


CO 


r~ 


o 


K 


T— 


CO 


cn 


O 


-cr 


^t- 


rn 


cn 


CN 


^r 


■q- 


CN 


CXI 


h« 




fcO 


CO- 


C7> 


to 


to 










LT) 


in 


in 


in 


in 



°6 

a. 
.a 

&1 



0) , 
co 

03 * 



CD 



1 (O °8 

<" H ■£ re S 

CD — ' _l i5 c 

TO = ,. 43 ~ 

J r- 03 Q) H) 

co co ~ E " 

^ !^ T ™ 



S 



3 tz <*> 
m u. o 



J-. w 



a < 



cn" •£ ♦_, 

C O 03 



E 
5 t 

03 



Z Q. 



Qg -, 



c7 c: 



to 

X 

m c 

■£ Q 
E -a 






< 



H- o -S fc cn 



JB C73 ^. £ 
03 >,* c 

CO JS i. ~ 



e i 



CD 



111 



5? 




CO 


o 




o 


CO 

in 
o 




CO 
in 
o 


in 
to 




in 
to 


5? 




o 


in 




CD 


CM 

cn 




57 

CO 

in 


o 

feO 




co 















CO 


















o_ 












to 




CvO 


CO 










CD 


m 






CM 




M- 


C) 




in 


ci 




cn 


CM 




^r 


<J> 




feO 








CO 




CO 


^T 






CO 




o 


m 




CM 


in 




CT 






CO 


CM 




in 


W 




to 



to CO 



^ 03 iS 



& e 



O s 

Hi 03 



O O 

if 

O c 

i- o 

03 O 

U3 ~ 

3 » 



a ^ ^ 
£ £ .53 

•3 m CD 03 



CO 


03 


n 


&b 




(0 


■ 

CJ 

> 




2 
o 

i- 


o 

£ 

03 
N 

03 


D 

3 


CD cu 

i e 

o & 


in 


(0 


K 


_ — 






cn 








E 


m cq 






■ 


o u 




03 


u. 


'o <-> 




CJ 


o 






•c 


a. o- 
















>• ?r 




c 


B 


X3 XI 




a 


■o "O 












03 


03 


■o P 

> > 




03 


E 


o o 




1 


CO 

1 


1? 



1 7 



City and County of San Francisco 



Liza M. Lowery 
Executive Director 

Telephone: (415)554-0801 




Attachment II 
Fage 1 of 3 

Department of Telecommunications 
and Information Services 

Denise M. Brady 

Policy, Planning and Compliance Deputy Director 

Telephone: (415)554-4443 Fax: (415)554-7011 



Brian Roberts 

Telephone: (415) 554-0861 



Fax: (415) 554-0854 



December 14, 2000 

Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst 
1390 Market St., Room 1025 
San Francisco, CA 94102 

Re: File #00-2066 - Pacific Bell Telecommunications Services Contract 

Calendar for December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Dear Mr. Rose: 

In response to your inquiry, following is information regarding the negotiation strategy and 
approach taken by DTIS. 

In late 1999, the Department of Telecommunications and Information Services ("DTIS") of the 
City and County of San Francisco ("City") began negotiations for interim telecommunications 
contract extensions with Pacific Bell. These interim contracts were pursued to allow the City 
sufficient time to conduct a thorough analysis and develop a long-term strategy for the most 
efficient and effective way to acquire telecommunications services. DTIS chose the interim 
contract approach because (1) Pacific Bell is the only facilities-based carrier that can meet the 
City's telecommunications needs; (2) DTIS does not have sufficient information about the City's 
needs; and (3) DTIS is exploring the possibility of increasing efficiency by integrating self- 
provision of services into the overall telecommunications network strategy. 

DTIS pursued interim contracts with Pacific Bell because no competitive facilities-based carrier 
covered a sufficient area where the City requires telecommunications services. (A facilities 
based carrier is a carrier that uses its own facilities to provide service. By contrast, a non- 
facilities based carrier relies on facilities leased from the incumbent carrier, Pacific Bell. Many 
competitive carriers ("competitors") use a combination of their own facilities and leased facilities 
to provide services.) A report commissioned by DTIS, titled "A Survey of Telecommunications 
Carriers Doing Business in San Francisco," concluded that facilities-based competitors were 
confined to an area covering the financial district, South of Market, and North of Market Street to 
Kearny Street. Consequently the competitors' facilities do not reach a vast majority of the City's 
premises that lie to the west of this area. 

Competitive carriers in San Francisco generally deploy high capacity fiber-optic network 
facilities that are the most efficient means for providing high capacity data connections and 
connections between multi-line buildings. These competitors do not plan to replicate the copper 
wire facilities that Pacific Bell has distributed throughout the City. Instead, competitors may 
lease lines from Pacific Bell to reach certain locations. Based on these findings, DTIS believes 
that competition will not result in finding a facilities-based carrier that can meet the City's 
telecommunications needs. 






At tac lament 11 
Page 2 of 3 

Letter to Harvey Rose, Budget ftffaiyst 

December 14, 2000 

Page 2 

Even in areas where the City's needs match the competitor's offerings, the competitor would 
have to construct, install and test links between City premises and the competitor's networks. 
Additionally, it is not practical to carve out specific locations for competitive service provision in 
the areas served by competitors. Creating a City network from multiple pieces provided by a 
variety of competitors is costly and complex. For example, the City owns 70 private switches 
that each serve up to 600 individual lines. (A switch is device that routes calls to different 
locations.) These switches are located in various City premises and integrated into a single 
network by Pacific Bell. Even though some of these switches are physically located in areas 
served by competitors, integrating the switches into a single network using multiple competitors 
would be far more complex and most likely result in higher costs. DTIS does not believe that 
procuring the City's wireline network telecommunications services from multiple vendors is in 
the best interest of the City. 

DTIS also pursued interim contract extensions because sufficient information about the City's 
long term telecommunications needs was not available. In late 1999, DTIS was in the process 
of conducting a Request for Proposal for consulting services to conduct a thorough assessment 
of the City's current and future telecommunications needs, identify approaches for meeting 
these needs, and recommend an efficient and reliable internal telecommunications strategy. 
DTIS' consultant for this project is now in the final stages of completing the Internal Needs 
Assessment. This assessment, once incorporated into the City's Telecommunications Plan, 
sets the strategic direction by which DTIS can develop detailed telecommunications 
requirements. Therefore, DTIS strongly believes that the City should not enter into any long- 
term telecommunications contracts in the absence of this information. 

Finally, DTIS pursued interim contracts with Pacific Bell to allow an opportunity for the City to 
explore options for replacing telecommunications services from an outside provider with self- 
provision of these same services. Under this arrangement, the City can use existing resources 
and/or acquire its own telecommunications infrastructure to provide part of the services currently 
provided by Pacific Bell. Many government entities and businesses find this approach to be a 
more efficient way to meet their telecommunications needs. Additionally, City's inventory of 
telecommunications assets has recently increased due to compensation received, or committed 
to the City, from franchise negotiations. The City has also increased its use of its own network 
infrastructure such as private switches. DTIS strongly believes that the City should not ignore 
benefits derived from the ability to self-provision telecommunications services by entering into 
long-term telecommunications contracts. 

The interim, or short-term, nature of these contract extensions supports development of a long- 
term telecommunications strategy and allows the City to position itself to take advantage of the 
emerging competitive marketplace. At the same time, DTIS sought reasonable costs in the 
interim period and service measures to address past service and billing issues. 

Originally, DTIS pursued two-year interim contract extensions for all telecommunications 
services. Pacific Bell's pricing for a two-year contract was not significantly less than current 
pricing, approximately 5 percent less overall for the services they were willing to provide under a 
two-year contract, which were not all the services needed by the City. These price reductions 
were concentrated in traditional voice services with pricing for data and other services actually 
increasing in some cases, and yet other services not being covered at all. As an alternative, 
Pacific Bell suggested DTIS procure all telecommunications services through the State's, 5-year 
exclusive CalNet contract. Neither option met the City's requirements for an interim solution 
with reasonable pricing. 

19 



Attachment i: 
Page 3 ot T~ 

Letter to Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst 

December 14, 2000 

Page 3 

To address these requirements, DTIS next sought to separate telecommunications services into 
two categories, traditional voice services and data services. The longer term, more exclusive 
CalNet contract is better suited for traditional voice services. DTIS believes that these voice 
services, which rely on copper wire facilities, are less likely to be delivered via fiber optic 
facilities installed by the City or provided by a competitor in the next five years. The CalNet 
contract does not have a minimum revenue requirement, so the City can gradually reduce 
volumes and replace these services with alternative services. 

By contrast, high-speed data services and connections between multi-user facilities are more 
likely to be replaced by fiber optic infrastructure installed by the City or provided by a competitor. 
These high-speed services are included in the City specific, short-term contract extensions. 
DTIS seeks to use three year contract extensions for data services because we believe that 
these services are more likely to be efficiently provided over City infrastructure or subject to 
competition in the next few years. Additionally, Pacific Bell's pricing for three-year contract 
extensions is generally better than current pricing. For the services that DTIS has chosen for a 
three-year contract, the prices are on aggregate 5% lower than current prices. 



Sincerely/ 




Liza Lowery, Executive Ipirecjor 
cc: Alan Gibson 



20 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Item 3 -File 00-1944 

Note: This item was continued by the Finance and Labor Committee at its meeting 
of December 6, 2000. 



Department: 
Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Department of the Environment 

Ordinance appropriating $89,000 from the General Fund 
Reserve for the Department of the Environment to fund a 
Community Window to disseminate information on the 
cleanup of the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, designed to 
serve as the central location for the community on 
information, cleanup, and emergency alerts, for Fiscal 
Year 2000-01. This report is based on the Substitute 
Ordinance introduced on November 28, 2000. 

$89,000 

General Fund Reserve (See Comment No. 4) 

The proposed ordinance would appropriate $89,000 to the 
Department of the Environment to fund a Community 
Window on the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard Cleanup 
('Community Window") in the Bayview Hunters Point 
neighborhood to serve as a central location for posting and 
disseminating information to the public related to 
environmental cleanup efforts at the Hunters Point Naval 
Shipyard. The Community Window would be located in 
the six foot by six foot storefront of the Community First 
Coalition/Bayview Hunters Point Community Advocates 
Office, located at 5021 3 rd Street, between Palou and 
Quesada Avenues. The Community Window would be 
open 'to the public Monday through Firday, 9 a.m. to 5 
p.m. and would be updated regularly and staffed by the 
Bayview Hunters Point Community Advocates, one of the 
three community-based organizations to develop and 
operate the Community Window (discussed below). 

According to Ms. Francesca Vietor, Director of the 
Department of the Environment, the Community Window 
will contain four main components: 

(1) A storefront window display visible to the street, to be 
updated weekly with information related to the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Bayview Hunters Point Naval Shipyard cleanup. 

(2) A Cleanup Information Center immediately behind the 
display window, containing copies of relevant 
documents, updated schedules of meetings, hearings 
and other events related to the shipyard cleanup, 
cleanup job referral information, and a television to 
view a library of video tapes on toxic waste cleanup 
related to the shipyard. The Cleanup Information 
Center would also include a toll-free public 
information telephone line with a pre-recorded, 
regularly updated message with cleanup news and a 
computer terminal for searching cleanup records and 
Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
databases. 

(3) A Community Emergency Alert Center using the 
display window and the telephone Information Hotline 
discussed above to provide up-to-date information in 
the case of an emergency. 

(4) A website called "Window on the Web" would provide 
internet access to updates, schedules and documents 
provided at the Community Window. 

According to Ms. Vietor, $85,000 of the proposed $89,000 
supplemental appropriation would be allotted to three 
community-based non-profit organizations to develop and 
operate the Community Window, with the Department of 
the Environment administering the funds and providing 
information and resources on the clean-up via its 
EcoCenter. Through its EcoCenter, the Department of the 
Environment provides public education and outreach on 
local environmental issues. Ms. Vietor advises that the 
remaining $4,000 of the proposed $89,000 supplemental 
appropriation would fund administrative costs incurred 
by the Department of the Environment in administering 
the contract for the proposed Community Window. 

The Bayview Hunters Point Community Advocates, a 
local non-profit organization, would oversee the display 
window, the Cleanup Information Center, the public 
information telephone line, and provide an existing full- 
time employee to staff the Cleanup Information Center. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting . 

Ms. Vietor advises that under a subcontract with the 
Bayview Hunters Point Community Advocates, Arc 
Ecology would also provide a full-time equivalent existing 
employee to serve as the Cleanup Information 
Coordinator, assigned to collecting and analyzing 
technical papers and information on cleanup efforts to be 
posted in the Information Center and on the website. In 
addition, the Bayview Hunters Point Community 
Advocates would provide a subcontract to an organization 
called the Hunters Point Shipyard Trust for the Arts to 
design displays in the storefront window, in the 
Information Center and on the website. (See Comment 
No. 2 below). 

Budget: Attachment I to this report, provided by the Department 

of the Environment, contains budget details for the 
proposed $89,000 supplemental appropriation for the one- 
year period from January 1, 2001 through December 31, 
2001. 

Comments: 1. According to Ms. Vietor, the first year of the proposed 

Community Window will serve as a pilot program, with 
future funding subject to appropriation by the Board of 
Supervisors, based upon demonstrated success and need. 
Ms. Vietor advises that the Department of the 
Environment will evaluate the success of the pilot 
program based on the level of community participation in 
the shipyard clean-up efforts. Some of the performance 
measures would include the number of website hits, level 
of traffic by the Community Window and the Cleanup 
Information Center, number of calls to the Center, 
number of community members involved in the clean-up 
process, and Hunters Point residents' level of satisfaction 
with the information being provided about the overall 
clean-up plan. The Budget Analyst notes that the subject 
$89,000 supplemental appropriation includes one-time 
costs of $16,500 as shown in budget contained in 
Attachment I, including the $6,500 for the window display 
and approximately $10,000 for a new computer, related 
software and supplies, and website development. 

2. Ms. Vietor advises that the community-based non-profit 
organizations that would staff and operate the 
Community Window (the Bayview Hunters Point 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Community Advocates, Arc Ecology, and the Hunters 
Point Shipyard Artists) were selected on a sole source 
basis, according to Ms. Vietor, because these three 
organizations worked together to design the proposed 
Community Window program and have extensive 
experience with the Hunters Point community and the 
technical issues involved in the clean-up efforts. 
According to Ms. Vietor, a contract in the amount of 
$85,000 to operate the Community Window will be 
between the Department of the Environment and the 
Bayview Hunters Point Community Advocates for one 
year, beginning January 1, 2001 and ending December 31, 
2001. As shown in Attachment I, Ms. Vietor advises that 
the Bayview Hunters Point Community Advocates in turn 
will allocate $34,250 in funds to Arc Ecology to fund the 
Cleanup Information Coordinator and related 
administrative expenses, and $6,500 to the Hunters Point 
Shipyard Trust for the Arts for the design and construct 
displays. 

3. Attachment II, provided by the Department of the 
Environment, contains a one-year work plan and time 
line for creating the proposed Community Window. 

4. The proposed $89,000 supplemental appropriation was 
continued by the Finance and Labor Committee meeting 
of December 6, 2000 to provide time for the Department of 
the Environment to pursue funding sources other than 
the General Fund Reserve. As of the writing of this 
report, the Department of the Environment was still 
considering alternative funding sources and could not 
provide the Budget Analyst with further information in 
response to the Finance and Labor Committee's direction. 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed ordinance is a policy matter for 

the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Attachment I 



MEMORANDUM 



TO: Marina Kipnis, Executive- AssL, Dept. of Environment 

FROM: Alex Lantsberg, Project & Development Coordinator, Arc Ecology 

RE; Cost Breakdown for Window Proposal (1/1/2001 - 12/31/2001) 



conversation, 



Per our 
Community 
Advocates' 
Please contact me 



Window 
Executive 



, the following is a more detailed breakdown of the budget figures for the 
on the Shipyard Cleanup proposal. Per my conversation with the 
e Director, an existing staff person will assume responsibilities for item 1 . 
with any questions at 415/495-1786. 



1. 



Facility, Display, & Web Management and Referral Services (based at BtfHP Advocates) 

$27,500.00 1 FTE Staff Person (annual) ; 

$4,125.0(1 taxes & benefits (15%) 

$2. 625.00 administrative expenses, rent, and overhead ! 

$34.25oToQ 



2. 



Cleanup Information Coordinator (based at Arc Ecology) 

$27,500.00 1 FTE Staff person (annual) 
$4, 125. op taxes & benefits (15%) 
$2.625, Op administrative expenses and overhead 



$34.250.00 



Display Design 

4.000.0D 

2.500.00 

S6.500.ob 



Window display supplies & materiaJs 

Display design, development, and set-up (subcontract with HPS Artists) 



4. 



Web Development, Computer, Presentation Materials, and Supplies 

$2,000. CO Web Design and management 

■ 51,750.00 DSL subscription 

$1,750. CO Presentation supplies 

$1,250.00 Computer for Kiosk 

$1,250.00 toll free hotline number 

$1,000.00 Presentation equipment 

S500.(J0 Software 

$500.00 • misc. supplies 
$10.000.60 

Administration {provided by the Department of Environment) 

$4.000 00 Administrative oversight and reporting 



,38?,PW 



PROGRAM TOTAL 

i 

Source: Department of Environment 



Attachment II 



BUDGET 



Facility, Display, & Web Management and Referral Services 

Cleanup Information Coordinator 

Display Design 

Computer and AV 

TOTAL 



$34,250 

34,250 

6,500 

10.000 

85,000 



WORK PLAN 



MONTHS 


ACTIVITIES 


1 


■ Begin posting notices in window, 

■ Begin window, interior display, & web design 

■ Acquire Furniture & Equipment for Clearinghouse area 

■ Send requests to Navy, EPA, DTSC, SFDPH for Display and educational 
materials contributions 


2 


■ Install toll free hot line number 

■ Set up computer &. video education area 

■ Finalize design details for displays & web 

■ Test web site, computer & video education area 

■ Organize facility dedication - community reception 

o Organize speakers 
o Mail invitations for facility dedication 

o Outreach to Bayview residents and schools regarding the opening of 
the facility ' 


3 


■ Install window art work/display materials 

■ Install interior displays 

■ Facility dedication - community reception 

o Mail press releases 

o Morning press conference w/ speakers & demonstration of resources 

o Community event w/ speakers & demonstration of resources 


4 










Carrv Out Ongoing Program 

■ Community Updates on Parcel E Fire 

■ Community Notification of Cleanup 
Comment Periods 

■ Community Technical Updates on 
Pertinent Cleanup Documents 

■ Visiting Class Education Program 

• Host Meetings of Local Emergency 




5 






6 






7 






8 






9 






10 






~~TT 




Planning Committee ^____ 




12 


' — — -— __— 



Deliverables (Year 1) 

■ Window Display & Updates (Month 3 and ongoing) 

■ Interactive Web Site (Month 3 and ongoing maintenance) 

■ Video &. Computer Education Areas (Month 3) 

■ The Toll Free Information & Emergency Hotline Number (Month 3) 

■ Visiting Class Education Program (Month 4) 



-T r«_ . 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Item 4 - File 00-1798 

Department: 

Item: 



Description: 



Comments: 



Department of Parking and Traffic (DPT) 

Ordinance amending Section 17.11(a) of the San 
Francisco Administrative code to extend the authorization 
of the Parking Authority to utilize a Bid/Request for 
Proposal (RFP) process for the awarding of all leases and 
management agreements for the use or operation of 
parking facilities by 18 months from December 1, 2000 to 
June 1, 2002. 

On April 26, 1999, the Board of Supervisors approved an 
ordinance that enabled DPT to issue Bid/RFPs in lieu of 
the formal competitive bidding process currently 
described in Section 17.11 of the Administrative Code for 
awarding leases and management agreements for parking 
facility operations (see File No 98-1935). Specifically, the 
current ordinance enables DPT to issue Bid/RFP's when 
the Parking and Traffic Commission determines that such 
a process is in the best interest of the public. 

The current ordinance also states that "the authority 
given to the Parking Authority to use a Bid/RFP Process 
shall sunset on December 1, 2000, unless the Board of 
Supervisors, by ordinance, continues this authorization." 
Additionally, the current ordinance states that "the 
Bid/RFP Process shall be reviewed by the Parking 
Authority to determine if the utilization of the Bid/RFP 
Process has been in the best interest of the public, and a 
report shall be submitted to the Board of Supervisors." 

The proposed ordinance would amend Section 17.11(a) of 
the Administrative Code to extend the current sunset 
date by 18 months, changing it from December 1, 2000 to 
June 1, 2002. 

1. According to Mr. Ronald Szeto of DPT, the Department 
has not submitted a report to the Board of Supervisors 
regarding the current ordinance and whether or not it is 
in the best interest of the public. The submission of such 
a report is required under Section 17.11(a) of the 
Administrative Code. Mr. Szeto states that, during the 
approximately 18 months since the current ordinance 

Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



became effective, DPT has not issued a single contract, 
and therefore has no experience upon which to base a 
report (see Comment No. 2). Mr. Szeto further states that 
the Department is requesting an 18 month extension of 
the sunset date to June 1, 2002 because this would allow 
DPT the same period of time the Board of Supervisors 
originally allowed for evaluation of the Bid/RFP Process 
at DPT, with regard to leases and management 
agreements for use or operation of parking facilities. 

2. Mr. Szeto states that DPT initiated RFP Processes for 
management of the Golden Gateway Garage and the 
Performing Arts Garage on July 10, 1999, shortly after 
the Board of Supervisors authorized this process. 
However, both processes were significantly delayed 
because DPT sought to implement a new requirement 
that new parking garage contract managers retain at 
least 75 percent of the existing garage employees under 
the previous contractor, according to Mr. Szeto. Mr. Szeto 
states that, following the resolution of this retention 
issue, DPT reinitiated RFP processes, and received 14 
bids for the Golden Gateway Garage and the Performing 
Arts Garage. However, only one of the qualified bids was 
ultimately determined to have met all of the Human 
Rights Commission's subcontracting requirements. 
Consequently, on November 21, 2000, all bids were 
rejected, according to Mr. Szeto. 

According to Mi. Szeto, the single, lawfully responsive bid 
was rejected because it could not be compared with any 
other lawful bids, and was thus, not competitive. 

3. According to Mr. Szeto, the original competitive 
bidding process prescribed in Section 17.11 prior to its 
amendment in April of 1999 required approval of two 
types of legislation by the Board of Supervisors. First, the 
Board of Supervisors was required, by ordinance, to 
approve bid documents related to the award of such 
contracts as well as authorize the Director of Property to 
issue an Invitation for Bid. Second, the Board of 
Supervisors was required, by resolution, to approve the 
contract awarded to the highest bidder in the case of a 
lease or the lowest bidder in the case of a management 
agreement. According to Mr. Szeto, this two-part process 

Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



for obtaining approval of an award by the Board of 
Supervisors generally took six months. According to Mr. 
Szeto, the amended ordinance allowed DPT to utilize an 
RFP process, which is expected to expedite the 
contracting process by two months. 

4. According to Ms. Lori Giorgi of the City Attorney's 
Office, if the Board of Supervisors were to disapprove the 
proposed ordinance, DPT would only be authorized to 
issue contracts through competitive processes, such as 
was previously described in Section 17.11. Ms. Giorgi 
notes that, while the Section 17.11 no longer address such 
a formal process, other requirements that apply generally 
to other City contracts would dictate a process for DPT 
very similar to what was previously described in Section 
17.11 (see Comment No. 3). 

5. The Attachment, provided by DPT, describes each of 
the specific criteria, in addition to monetary 
considerations, that the DPT would use to evaluate 
potential operators if the DPT were able to continue to 
issue Bid/RFPs, in lieu of using formal competitive 
bidding procedures to award leases and management 
agreements to operate the parking facilities. Under the 
proposed Bid/RFP evaluation process, DPT would weight 
the cost of the parking operator's bid at 150 points or 60 
percent of the 250 total points being considered. 

6. According to Mr. Szeto, the formal bidding process 
previously identified in Section 17.11 required that 
awards be made solely based on the amount of the bids 
presented by operators, after specific qualifications 
established by the DPT were met. However, Mr. Szeto 
states that through the use of a Bid/RFP process, the DPT 
would receive additional information from potential 
operators as to the quality of service and the management 
proposed to be provided. The Budget Analyst, in our 
previous report on this item, noted that nothing precluded 
the DPT from obtaining such additional information 
under the previously required formal competitive bidding 
procedures, which, required the award of such contracts 
to "responsive and responsible" bidders. 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

7. The Budget Analyst continues to believe that the DPT 
has not been presented compelling evidence to show that 
it would be financially beneficial for the City to permit 
DPT to waive the formal competitive bidding process 
previously described in Section 17.11 of the 
Administrative Code. The Budget Analyst notes that any 
additional information which the DPT states it would 
obtain using a Bid/RFP process could, in fact, also be 
obtained under a formal competitive bidding process. 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed ordinance is a policy matter for 

the Board of Supervisors. 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 



Attachment 
Page 1 of 2 



EVALUATION and SELECTION CRITERIA 



The submittals will be evaluated by a selection committee, including but not limited to 
individuals with expertise in parking management contracts. The City intends to evaluate 
the submittals generally in accordance with the criteria itemized below. The City may 
inspect a parking facility operated by the proposer as part of the evaluation process on an 
•unannounced basis. 

1. Management Approach (40 Points) 

Submit a narrative description of the services and activities that your firm 
proposes to provide to the City, including an implementation plan for said 
services and activities, to optimize the overall garage performance and service. 

2. Assigned Management Staff (40 Points Total) 

a. Submit qualifications and experience of on-site manger and supervisors 
and availability of extra staff for additional services on an "as needed" 
basis. Provide written assurance that such key personnel will not be 
transferred in or out of the Garage without the prior approval of the 
Parking Authority Staff. 

(20 points) 

b. Describe accomplishments of the on-site manager which contributed to the 
success of previously managed parking facilities. 

(15 points) 

c. Describe staff reorganization necessary to optimize the overall garage ■ 
performance and service. 

(5 points) 

3. Experience of Firm and Sub-Contractors (20 Points Total) 

a. Describe the experience of the Proposer's firm and sub-contractors in the 
fields necessary to complete required tasks such as parking management, 
maintenance/repair, janitorial services, security services and shuttle 
services. 

(10 points) 

b. Provide examples of Proposer's experience in utilizing sub-contractors to 
perform services and/or complete improvement projects at previously 
managed parking facilities. In addition, state any benefits derived from 
such services and/or capital projects on the overall parking facility 
performance and service. 

(10 points) 



Attachment 
Page 2 of 2 



4. Management Fee Bid (150 Points Total) 

a. Management Fee. 

(150 points) 

The City intends to award this contract to the firm that it considers will provide 
the best overall management services, at a reasonable cost, for operation of the 
Garage. The City reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced 
proposal and to reject any and all submittals that are not responsive to this 
request. 

Please provide a fee proposal that includes die following: 

a. Total Management Fee as defined in the Management Agreement; 

b. Recent experience of staff assigned to the project and a description of the 
tasks to be performed by each staff person; 

c. Qualifications and education; and 

d. Workload, staff availability and accessibility. 

The amount of the management fee contained in the submittal is part of the selection 
criteria. Management fee bids (the "Bid") will be evaluated under the following formula 
for a total of 1 50 points assigned to the Bid. For example, the firm that provides a Bid of 
SI 0,000 receives all 150 points. The next lowest Bid of SI 2,000 receives a score of 125 
points (SI 0,000 divided by $12,000, multiplied by 150 points). 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Item 5 - File 00-2148 



Department: Department of Public Health (DPH) 

Item: Ordinance amending Part II, Chapter V, of the San Francisco 

Municipal Code (Health Code) by amending Section 128 
thereof, to fix patient rates for services furnished by the 
Department of Public Health, effective January 1, 2001. 

Description: The San Francisco Municipal Code requires the City to 

approve an ordinance each year fixing patient rates for 
medical and related services provided by the Department of 
Public Health (DPH). DPH reviews annually its charges for 
services and makes adjustments, when appropriate, to 
provide for a recovery of new costs that DPH expects to incur 
in the following year 1 . In August of 2000, the Board of 
Supervisors approved DPH's last annual request to increase 
patient rates for services provided (see File No. 00-1337), 
which took effect on July 1, 2000. DPH is now requesting a 
mid-year adjustment that would alter rates, effective 
January 1, 2001. 

According to Ms. Monique Zmuda of DPH, the Department 
has determined that, due to the potential availability of 
additional funding from MediCal funding sources, it would be 
in the best interest of the City to seek increased 
reimbursement rates from MediCal's disproportionate share 
program, and/or increased per diem rates. However, the 
Department is currently ineligible to apply for such increased 
reimbursements from MediCal because MediCal requires 
funding recipients to maintain a certain differential between 
gross charges to patients, and MediCal reimbursements 2 . 
According to Ms. Zmuda, this differential is currently 
approximately $4 million, which is not large enough to meet 
MediCal's minimum requirements for eligibility. An increase 
in the rates at which patients are charged for services would 
increase this differential, and thus make DPH eligible to 
apply for up to $1.5 million in increased reimbursements 
from MediCal. Ms. Zmuda notes that costs have not 



' By recovering cost increases, DPH ensures that the ongoing General Fund subsidy for San Francisco General 

Hospital is held to the minirnum amount necessary. 

2 According to Ms. Zmuda, the State does not specify what margin is required at any given time, but rather indicates 

to jurisdictions that are potential applicants for increased funding whether or not they are eligible. Ms. Zmuda states 

that the State maintains this policy in order to ensure that no jurisdiction receives reimbursements that exceed their 

costs. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

1? 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

increased since July 1, 2000, but rather that DPH is seeking 
the proposed rate increases because additional funding may 
be available from MediCal that would increase MediCal 
reimbursements to DPH. This, in turn, could potentially 
reduce the City's General Fund subsidy of San Francisco 
General Hospital by as much as $1.5 million in FY 2000- 
2001, according to Ms. Zmuda. Ms. Zmuda notes that all 
proposed rates are comparable to the rates charged by other 
Bay Area health care institutions. 

The proposed ordinance would make a mid-year adjustment 
to set the DPH rates at which patients are charged for San 
Francisco General Hospital. The proposed rates would be 
effective January 1, 2001. 

Comments: 1. The Attachment, provided by the DPH, compares the FY 

2000-2001 patient rates approved by the Board of 
Supervisors in August of 2000 with the proposed mid-year 
adjustment patient rates, which would become effective on 
January 1, 2001. As shown in the Attachment to this report, 
the proposed rate changes, as recommended by DPH, range 
from no increase to an increase of 33 percent. On average, 
all proposed increases would average 12 percent, according to 
Ms. Zmuda. 

2. According to Ms. Zmuda, the Department's FY 2000-01 
budget includes $28,981,588 in total patient revenues, which 
are from private insurance, co-payment insurance, and 
payments by individuals, based on the FY 2000-2001 patient 
rates approved by the Board of Supervisors in August of 
2000. According to Ms. Zmuda, patient revenues are only a 
small portion of the reimbursements realized by DPH, with 
the majority coming from MediCal sources. Ms. Zmuda 
further states that San Francisco General Hospital serves 
significant numbers of indigent patients, and charges those 
patients on a sliding scale. According to Ms. Zmuda, indigent 
patients' co-payment requirements are already fixed based 
on those patients' income, and thus their co-payments would 
not be effected by the proposed mid-year increase in rates. 
Further, patients on General Assistance and many indigent 
patients do not pay for services at all. Thus, the proposed 
mid-year adjustment of rates is not expected to affect total 
patient revenues, according to Ms. Zmuda. Ms. Zmuda notes, 
however, that the proposed increases will allow DPH to apply 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

for increased reimbursements from Medical, which may 
result in up to $1.5 million in additional revenue from 
MediCal sources in FY 2000-2001. According to Ms. Zmuda, 
however, the likelihood of being awarded these increased 
reimbursement rates by Medical is unknown at this time. 

3. Ms. Zmuda states that the proposed patient rates are 
comparable to the rates charged by other Bay Area health 
care institutions. 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed ordinance. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



TYPE OF SERVICE 



COMMUNITY HEALTH NETWORK 



Attachment 
Page 1 of 6 



DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH 

PATIENT RATES 

FY 00-01 

EFFECTIVE JANUARY 2001 

UNITS OF RATE 

SERVICE FY 00-01 

EFFECTIVE JULY 1,2000 



RATE 
FY 00-01 PERCENT 

EFFECTIVE JAN 1 , 2001 CHANGE 



San Francisco General Hospital 
Supplies & Drugs 



Unit 



Special Price List 



In-Patient Care 




Medical Surgical 


Day 


Intensive Care 


Day 


Intensive Care - Trauma 


Day 


Coronary Care 


Day 


Chest-Pulmonary 


Day 


Stepdown Units 


Day 


Pediatrics 


Day 


Obstetrics 


Day 


Nursery 




New Born 


Day 


Observation/Well Baby 


Day 


Semi-Intensive Care 


Day 


Intensive Care 


Day 


Labor/Delivery - 6G 


Day 


Labor/Delivery Hours of Stay 


Hour 


Psychiatric Inpatient 


Day 


Psychiatric Forensic Inpatient - 7L 


Day 


AIDS Unit - 5A 


Day 


Security Unit - 7D 


Day 


Skilled Nursing Facility 


Day 


Mental Health Rehab. SNF 


Day 



1.350 
2.950 
3,300 
2,950 
2.600 
2,000 
1.350 
1.350 

850 

1.350 

2.000 

2.950 

1,350 

70 

1,350 

1.350 

1.350 

1.350 

500 

500 



1.50C 


11% 


3.300 


12% 


3.300 


0% 


3,300 


12% 


2.950 


13% 


2.200 


10% 


1.500 


11% 


1,500 


11% 


950 


12% 


1.500 


11% 


2.200 


10% 


3,300 


12% 


1.500 


11% 


80 


14% 


1.500 


11% 


1.500 


11% 


1.500 


11% 


1.500 


11% 


560 


12% 


560 


12% 



Surgical Services 

Minor Surgery Pre-Op Holding Room 
Minor Surgery I (Come & Go) 



Minor Surgery II 

Major Surgery Pre-Op Holding 
Major Surgery I 

Major Surgery II 

Major Surgery III 

Extraordinary Surgery 

l:\BOS\pl_rales_01 12/12/00 4 03 PM 



Room 
1/4 Hour 
1/2 Hour 
3/4 Hour 
Full 1 Hour 
Ea. Add'l 1/4 Hr. 
1st Hour ' 
Ea. Add'l 1/2 Hr. 
Room 
1st Hour 
Add'l 1/2 Hour 
1st Hour 
Add'l 1/2 Hour 
1st Hour 
Add'l 1/2 Hour 
1st Hour 



155 
220 
440 
660 
870 
220 
950 
470 
155 

1.400 
500 

1,600 
550 

1,800 
660 

2,000 



170 


10% 


250 


14% 


490 


11% 


74; 


12% 


970 


11% 


250 


14% 


1.060 


12% 


530 


13% 


170 


10% 


1,600 


14% 


560 


12% 


1,800 


13% 


620 


I3K 


2,000 


11% 


740 


12% 


2,200 


10% 



DEPARTMENT OP PUBLIC HEALTH 

PATIENT RATES 

FY 00-01 

EFFECTIVE JANUARY 2001 



Attachment 
Page 2 of 6 



EOF SERVICE 

Surgery (2 Teams) 
Surgery (3 Teams) 
Major Trauma 111 
Major Trauma II 
Major Trauma I 
Recovery Room 

Anesthesia 

Laser Treatment 
Therapeutic Abortion 

rauma Care 
Admitted/Expired 
Treated & Released 
Consultation 

Pediatric - Admitted/Expired 
Pediatric - Treated & Released 
Pediatric - Consultation 

mergency Clinic 
Level I 
Level II 
Level III 
Level IV 
Level V 
Level VI 



UNITS OF 


RATE 


RATE 




SERVICE 


FY 00-01 


FY 00-01 


PERCENT 




EFFECTIVE JULY 1,2000 


EFFECTIVE JAN 1,2001 


CHANGE 


Add'l 1/2 Hour 


725 


810 


12% 


Procedure 


2,800 


3,100 


11% 


Add'l 1/2 Hour 


950 


1,060 


12% 


Procedure 


3,600 


4,000 


11% 


Add'l 1/2 Hour 


1,200 


1.300 


8% 


First Hour 


3,154 


3,154 


0% 


Susequent Hours 


1,166 


1.166 


0% 


First Hour 


2.478 


2.478 


0% 


Susequent Hours 


791 


791 


0% 


First Hour 


1,881 


1.881 


0% 


Susequent Hours 


657 


657 


0% 


1st Hour 


550 


620 


13% 


2nd Add'l Hour 


130 


150 


15% 


3rd Add'l Hour 


80 


90 


13% 


First 1/2 Hour 


440 


490 


11% 


Add'l Minute 


15 


20 


33% 


Procedure 


1,450 


1,600 


10% 


Procedure 


250 


280 


12% 


Day 


4,500 


4,500 


0% 


Day 


2,800 


2.800 


0% 


Day 


750 


750 


0% 


Day 


4,500 


4,500 


0% 


Day 


2,800 


2,800 


0% 


Day 


750 


750 


0% 


Room 


90 


100 


11% 


Room 


120 


130 


8% 


Room 


150 


170 


13% 


Room 


280 


310 


11% 


Room 


630 


710 


13% 


Room 


1,500 


1,700 


13% 



l:\8OS\pl_rales_01 12/12/00 4:06 PM 



DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH 

PATIENT RATES 

FY 00-01 

EFFECTIVE JANUARY 2001 



Attachment 
Pap.e 3 of 6 



TYPE OF SERVICE 

Non-Critical Observation 

Critical Observation 

Resuscitation 



UNITS OF 


RATE 




RATE 






SERVICE 


FY 00-01 




FY 00-01 




PERCENT 




EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 


2000 


EFFECTIVE JAN 1, 


2001 


CHANGE 


0-2 Hours 




90 




100 


11% 


2-4 Hours 




250 




280 


12% 


4-6 Hours 




430 




480 


12% 


0-2 Hours 




250 




280 


12% 


2-4 Hours 




500 




560 


12% 


4-6 Hours 




750 




840 


12% 






1,500 




1,700 


13% 



General Clinic 




Initial 




E/M Focused Exam 


Visit 


E/M Expanded Exam 


Visit 


E/M Detailed Exam 


Visit 


E/M Comprehensive Exam 


Visit 


E/M Complex Exam 


Visit 


Targeted Case Management 


Visit 


Established Patient 




' E/M Brief Exam 


Visit 


E/M Focused Exam 


Visit 


E/M Expanded Exam 


Visit 


E/M Detailed Exam 


Visit 


E/M Comprehensive Exam 


Visit 


Consultation 




E/M Focused Consult 


Visit 


E/M Expanded Consult 


Visit 


E/M Detailed Consult 


Visit 


E/M Comprehensive Consult 


Visit 


E/M Complex Consult 


Visit 


Use of Exam Room 


Room 



80 

140 
160 
220 
280 
220 

50 

72 

95 

145 

220 

75 
115 
115 
155 
230 

40 



90 


13% 


160 


14% 


180 


13% 


250 


14% 


310 


11% 


250 


14% 


60 


20% 


60 


11% 


110 


16% 


160 


10% 


250 


14% 


80 


7% 


130 


13% 


130 


13% 


170 


10% 


260 


13% 


45 


13% 



Primary Care 

Initial ■ 

E/M Focused Exam 
E/M Expanded Exam 
E/M Detailed Exam 
E/M Comprehensive Exam 
E/M Complex Exam 
Targeted Case Management 



Visit 
Visit 
Visit 

Visit 
Visit 
Visit 



80 
110 
150 
200 
300 
160 



90 


13% 


120 


9% 


170 


13% 


220 


10% 


340 


13% 


180 


13% 



L:\BOS\pt_rates_01 12/1 2AM 4:06 PM 



Attachment 
Page 4 ot 6 



DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH 

PATIENT RATES 

FY 00-01 

EFFECTIVE JANUARY 2001 





UNITS OF 


RATE 


RATE 






SERVICE 


FY 00-01 


FY 00-01 


PERCENT 


E OF SERVICE 




EFFECTIVE JULY 1,2000 


EFFECTIVE JAN 1,2001 


CHANGE 


Established Patient 










E/M Brief Exam 


Visit 


40 


45 


13% 


E/M Focused Exam 


Visit 


60 


70 


17% 


E/M Expanded Exam 


Visit 


95 


110 


16% 


. E/M Detailed Exam 


Visit 


150 


170 


13% 


E/M Comprehensive Exam 


Visit 


180 


200 


11% 


lental Services 










Initial Complete Exam 


Visit 


37 


40 


8% 


Periodic Exam 


Visit 


37 


40 


8% 


Prophylaxis -Adult 


Visit 


52 


55 


6% 


Prophylaxis - Child 


Visit 


47 


50 


6% 


Extract Single Tooth 


Visit 


74 


80 


8% 


One Surface, Permanent Tooth 


Visit 


68 


70 


3% 


lome Health Services 










Skilled Nursing 


Visit 


153 


153 


0% 


Home Health Aide Services 


Visit 


79 


79 


0% 


Medical Social Services 


Visit 


213 


213 


0% 


Physical Therapy 


Visit 


175 


175 


0% 


Occupational Therapy 


Visit 


175 


175 


0% 


Speech Therapy 


Visit 


177 


177 


0% 


jna Honda Hospital 










Regular Hospital Rates 










Acute 


Day 


1,050 


1.050 


0% 


Rehabilitation 


Day 


1,050 


1,050 


0% 


Skilled Nursing Facility 


Day 


360 


360 


0% 


All Inclusive Rates 










Acute 


Per Diem 


1,320 


1,320 


0% 


Rehabilitation 


Per Diem 


1,320 


1,320 


0% 


Skilled Nursing Facility 


Day 


420 


420 


0% 



L:\BOS\pl rales 01 12/12/00 4:06 PM 



TYPE OF SERVICE 



POPULATION HEALTH & PREVENTION 



DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH 

PATIENT RATES 

FY 00-01 

EFFECTIVE JANUARY 2001 

UNITS OF RATE 

SERVICE FY 00-01 

EFFECTIVE JULY 1,2000 



Attachment 
Page 5 of 6 



RATE 
FY 00-01 PERCENT 

EFFECTIVE JAN 1, 2001 CHANGE 



Community Mental Health Services 




24-Hour Service 




Inpatient 


24 Hours 


Skilled Nursing 


24 Hours 


Crisis Residential 


24 Hours 


Residential 


24 Hours 


Day Services 




Rehabilitation 


Full Day 


Intensive 


Full Day 


Intensive (children) 


Half Day 


Crisis Socialization 


Hour 


Crisis Stabilization 


Hour 


Socialization 


Hour 


Outpatient Services 




Case Management Brokerage 


Hour 


Mental Health Services 


Hour 


Medication Support 


Half Hour 


Crisis Intervention 


Hour 


Community Substance Abuse 




Residential - Detoxification 


24 Hours 


Residential - Basic 


24 Hours 


Residential - Family 


24 Hours 


Residential - Medical Support 


24 Hours 


Recovery Home 


24 Hours 


Therapeutic Community 


24 Hours 


Outpatient (include Detox) 


Per Contract 


Methadone Treatment 


Hour 


Naltrexone Treatment 


Per Contract 


Prevention/Intervention 


Hour 


Day Care - Habilitative 


Per Contract 



1.350 
415 
250 
125 

110 
190 
200 
75 
80 
30 

96 
150 
120 
375 



87 

84 

140 

207 

70 

80 

108 

26 

45 

52 

112 



1,350 


0% 


415 


0% 


250 


0% 


125 


0% 


110 


0% 


190 


0% 


200 


0% 


75 


0% 


80 


0% 


30 


0% 


96 


0% 


150 


0% 


120 


0% 


375 


0% 


87 


0% 


84 


0% 


140 


0% 


207 


0% 


70 


0% 


80 


0% 


108 


0% 


26 


0% 


45 


0% 


52 


0% 


112 


0% 



L:\BOSVpt_rates_01 12/14AX) 12:08 PM 



DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH 

PATIENT RATES 

FY 00-01 

EFFECTIVE JANUARY 2001 



Attachment 
Page 6 of 6 



T 'E OF SERVICE 



UNITS OF RATE 

SERVICE FY 00-01 

EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2000 



■ RATE 
FY 00-01 
EFFECTIVE JAN 1,2001 



R:ords and Statistics 
3irth Record 
)eath Record 

'ermit - Disposition of Human Remains 
'assport Application 
'assport Photo 
)ut-of-County Certificate 
'.ertificate Embossing 

ieath Certificate FAX Filing Fee - Mortuary 
Per Reviewed Submission 
Per Accepted Certificate 
Contract Change Order 
ational Adoption Resources Booklet 
jtter of Non-Contagious Disease 
ocument / Certificate Will-Call 



• Per Application 
Per 2 Photos 
Per Certificate 
Per Embossing 
(Under Contract) 
Per Submission 
Per Certificate 
Per Change Order 
Per Booklet 
Per Letter 
Per Document 



Rates Per State of California 
Rates Per State of California 
Rates Per State of California 
15 
10 
Market Rate + S10 Market Rate + $10 
5 



3 

7 

95 

2 

7 
5 



15 


0% 


10 


0% 




0% 


5 


0% 


3 


0% 


7 


0% 


95 


0% 


2 


0% 


7 


0% 


5 


0% 



>E f^RTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH 



ectronic/ Internet Transaction Fee 

'lephone / FAX Transaction Fee 

:pedited Delivery of Documents 

Regular Delivery - U.S. & International 
Same Day - Greater Bay Area 
Same Day - Other California 



Per Transaction 




5 




5 


0% 


Per Transaction 




5 




5 


0% 


Per Delivery 


Market Rate + $5 




Market Rate + $5 




0% 


Per Delivery 


Market Rate + $5 




Market Rate + $5 




0% 


Per Delivery 


Market Rate + $10 




Market Rate + $10 




0% 



D .T IMMUNIZATION CLINIC 



ccines 

Hepatitis A 
Hepatitis B 



Per Injection 
Per Injection 



42 
50 



42 

50 



0% 
0% 



- 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Item 6 - File 00-2068 



Department: 
Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 



Description: 



Budget: 



Comments: 



Department of Public Health (DPH) 

Ordinance appropriating $1,532,400 from the General 
Fund Reserve designated for one-time expenditures to 
fund the cost of medical and laboratory equipment for the 
San Francisco General Hospital for Fiscal Year 2000-01. 

$1,532,400 

General Fund - Reserve for One-Time City Expenditures. 

In FY 1995-96, the Controller recommended, and the 
Mayor and the Board of Supervisors concurred, that 
$16,800,000 in one-time revenue received from a change 
in the method of accounting for Sales Tax and Motor 
Vehicle in Lieu Tax revenue be placed on reserve and 
used only for capital or other projects which need one- 
time infusions of funds. Since that time, specific project 
appropriations have been made from this reserve, and the 
present reserve balance is $2,912,000. If the proposed 
supplemental appropriation of $1,532,400 is approved, the 
balance of this reserve would be $1,379,600. 

Under the subject ordinance, the proposed supplemental 
appropriation in the amount of $1,532,400 would fund the 
purchase of medical and laboratory equipment for the 
neurosurgical specialty service and intensive care unit 
components of San Francisco General Hospital (SFGH). 

Attachment I, provided by DPH, contains the proposed 
capital equipment budget in the amount of $1,532,400. 

1. Ms. Monique Zmuda of DPH states that DPH's FY 
2000-01 equipment budget of $3,663,944 for SFGH, as 
approved by the Board of Supervisors, is insufficient to 
meet the equipment needs of SFGH's neurosurgical 
specialty service and intensive care unit components. Of 
the FY 2000-01 equipment budget of $3,663,944: 

• $994,775, or approximately 27.1 percent, is being used 
to pay the full FY 2000-01 cost of ongoing SFGH 
equipment which is being lease -purchased. As of 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

hi 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



November 30, 2000 (approximately 41.7 percent of the 
fiscal year), $428,566 or approximately 43.1 percent of 
this budget has been spent, based on the schedule of 
monthly lease payments required. 
• $2,669,169, or approximately 72.9 percent, is being 
used to purchase equipment which is required for 
SFGH to meet accreditation standards and to replace 
obsolete or broken equipment. As of November 30, 
2000 (approximately 41.7 percent of the fiscal year), 
100 percent of this budget has been encumbered as 
requisitions have been issued for all of the equipment 
items to be purchased. 

Attachment II, provided by DPH, summarizes the FY 
2000-01 equipment budget in the amount of $3,663,944. 

2. Ms. Zmuda states that DPH estimates that the total 
cost of replacing critical equipment and purchasing the 
new technology now available for acute care treatment at 
SFGH is approximately $6,000,000 in FY 2000-01. 
According to Ms. Zmuda, the equipment considered for 
purchase under this proposed supplemental appropriation 
has been selected by the Associate Administrator, 
Facilities Management, in conjunction with SFGH's 
clinical chiefs. The criteria used to select the 
recommended equipment purchases include the 
remaining useful lifespan of equipment due to be replaced 
and clinical specialties' requirements for new technology. 
All the requests which meet these criteria are prioritized 
by the Associate Administrator, Facilities Management, 
and the Executive Administrator of SFGH. Ms. Zmuda 
advises that the hospital's neurosurgical specialty service 
has experienced significant breakdown of its existing 
equipment and has had difficulty in recruiting 
neurosurgeons due, in part, to its lack of new technology. 

3. According to Ms. Zmuda, the equipment purchases 
being funded by the $2,669,169 portion of the existing 
capital equipment budget (to purchase equipment 
required to meet accreditation standards and to replace 
obsolete or broken equipment) were assessed by DPH as 
having a higher priority than the medical and laboratory 
equipment which would be purchased under the subject 
supplemental appropriation. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



4. The following table, based on information provided by 
Ms. Zmuda, contains a five-year history of SFGH 
equipment purchase and lease purchase expenditures. 





FY 95-96 


FY 96-97 


FY 97-98 


FY 98-99 


FY 99-00 


Averape 


New equipment 
lease purchase 


$3,431,913 


$294,988 


$641,770 


$0 


$0 


$873,734 


Ongoing equipment 
lease purchase 





3,627,070 


2,500,222 


1,782,872 


1,140,909 


1,810,215 


Equipment 
purchase 


1.047.298 


627.395 


863.122 


2.224.759 


275.190 


1.007.553 


TOTAL 


$4,479,211 


$4,549,453 


$4,005,114 


$4,007,631 


$1,416,099 


$3,691,502 



5. Proposed FY 2000-01 SFGH equipment expenditures 
totaling $5,196,344 (the FY 2000-01 SFGH equipment 
budget of $3,663,944 plus the subject supplemental 
appropriation of $1,532,400) represent a $1,532,400, or 
approximately 41.5 percent, increase compared to the 
average SFGH equipment purchase and lease purchase 
expenditure of $3,691,502 for the five years between FY 
1995-96 and FY 1999-2000. 



Recommendation: 



Approval of the proposed ordinance is a policy matter for 
the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Attachment I 



CO 

O<o 
U o 
K O 

■M ■ 

C VQ 

a: 

J-J8- 

^§ 

H g 

r-J O 

.s ^ 

8* 

u 







1 


si 

UJ 


UJ 

2: 


1 


LU 
5 


UJ 


£ 
^ 


CD 

5 

CD 



ca 
Q. 

CD 


^ 

s 




UJ 


CD 

e 

-S 
Q. 

CD 






2 
1 




o 
o 
o 

CO- 
CO 

CM 

69- 


o 
o 
o 

o" 

in 


o 
o 

o" 

6<3- 


o 
o 
o 
o" 

CM 


o 

o 
o 
o" 

</> 






m-" 

CM 


O 
O 
O 

CD" 
CO 





r-" 





0" 
<o 






r~-" 

CD 
69- 


O 


0" 
O 






CO 
CM 
69- 




O 
CM- 
US 

<^5- 


Number 
Requested 




- 


- 


CD 


- 


- 


CM 


CO 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 






5 8 




O 

o 
o 
o" 

CO 
CN 


o 

o 
o 
o" 

in 

tfl- 


O 
O 

oo" 

60- 


o 
o 
o 
o" 

CM 


o 
o 
o 
o" 

to- 


O 
O 
O 

cm" 
to- 






CD" 
69- 


O 
O 
O 
r-." 

t/o- 





0" 

h- 






CD 


O 

O 
0" 



6* 


O 
O 
O 

co- 
cm 






1 




E 

& 
"in 

>i 

00 

c 
,o 

CD 

CD 
> 

CO 

en 

00 

CD 

co 
E 

TO 
it 


'E 
,o 

'-C 
Q. 

ro 

CD 
O 
DJ 
C 
< 

12 
'en 
Q 
03 

XI 
CO 

t! 

o 
CL 


CD 
_C 
T3 

O 

c 

oo 

c 
E 

O 

o 

DO 

p 

'E 
o 
E 

« ■«?■ 

° 8 

O o 

SL c 
■=:§ 
g-J 

§ iS 
co to 
2 .E 


'to 

ro 

CO 
Q. 

E 
ro 
w 

XI 

3 
_Q 

JO 

3 

en 

3 

jd 

I— 

_co 
"S3 
E 
'x 
o 

6 
o 


"E 

3 
CD 

o 
o 

CO 

c 
CO 

y 

>^ 

ra 
c 

TO 
T3 

'3 

5= 

JS 

'oo 
ro 

TO 




s 


ll 


g 

QJ 
Q. 
CM, 

a. 
E 
3 
a. 
to 
'00 
>^ 
ro 
'•0 


2 


COO 
C 

O 

c 


E 

CM 
O 
O 

"ro 

"D 

■0 
c 
UJ 


E 

O) 

>^ 

co 



u 

ro 

"S 

E 

c3 

-Q 
cz 

0) 
CD 

CD 


E 

.2 
to 
>. 
CO 
OT 

_c 

'E 
O 

p 

'cn 


'oo 

>v 

x: 

Q. 


"o 

CO 

UJ 

CO 

> 

ro 
ai 

Q. 


ro 

c 


_o 

"ro 

'o. 
to 

< 

p 

'c 

to 
ro 

5 


C 

ro 

CO 

1- 


c 


c 

CO 

X 


'E 



ro 



E 

CO 

X 
00 

3 
O 

CO 

> 


c: 

> 

<n 

3 


3 

c 

O 





to 

O 
& 

cr- 
O 

o; 

"<? 






CD 
CO 

s 

V) 

o 

3 

CD 


>> 

a 
o 
o 
■a 
E 
a 

z 


3 
O 


3 
O 


3 
O 


3 
O 


ID 
O 


CD 

en 

3 
00 


3 
CD 

z 


cT 

CO 
D) 

3 
00 



3 
CO 

2: 


& 

0) 
D) 

3 

to 

O 

3 
CO 

2 


CO 

DO 

3 
00 



3 
CO 

z 


3 






1 

1 




- 


DJ 


co 


■t 


m 


CD 


t*. 


CO 


0) 





- 









it- 3 

o o 



o ul Kl o cm ui kj o rt j n nO.o ul 
r*. ul ui o p ki 9> 9 1 o o ^ ^ °i° ° 

J«MHNdUlMONOUi;o«l 
Ul lil rv O Hifl>fllOKlHH^4 



rH^^H^CNf^-rHf-irH 



CM CM -I CM CM p* 



I- t- 
O Z 
1- 3 



o urn oNififO o.ki >r /*- *o 

o o co o o cm Kl cr cr* , :> <T •T N 

-T s O J OK) CA CA o o c *T o 

CAiji'iNuiciirtin r«. ki cm o ui 



O Kl 

O .0 

O CM 

.-. J 

IO CM 



rv ui ui \r\\i£\ o> ^ o -~ r. r -" 
J- Kl i-. rOui M Ifl K 



'UUIU1HHU 
' X l/l »- l/l, t- I- 

M30<<U 

>uua«:a!t- 



, E i w r i n 

. E Z O Z- (9 O 0> 

' O < u- UJ u. U. f^ 

U 111 1/1 U 1/1 1/1 « 






ju o o. >- -< a 



CD Q C 
3 a. 

9II9H 
K K UJ ■ 3 
o uj t- uj or 
o-;t- c/l i/i iu 

3 > •< 



3 . <ZKri 19 OS w 

OS Z 3 UJ ZZ3IH| 

(J III H t/> Kill M CL 1/lt 

t/l ~ r a .- _ - _i uj 

OS -1 < Z O M</1 3 I- U 

uj uj o.;x 3 a </> > a z o 

— <i«/l 



ui9'-<x<<3« * 



-i a. a < zl i/i 



M O O O -I < 

OS U U B. 3 O 



i = r 0.1 

- - - ■ 

I UJ U (/l M < 

3 1/1 3 I- 

O w as or < 

u u o uj a 



0. I- 

uj < 
I a: a 



E O E >- Q U M 

.£«<>- z iu t- 

0SH5S I 3 X UJ ^ U 

<«oaau.uj-)zuj 
n.>ozzaao<-i 

jjhi33 3Zs:j;ii 
qsclu.' u.1/1-4q.uo 



Zi os z z os'os z as as os as z z z z 

>T Ul -O h. CO.CA O p-i CMJK) f J\ O O H O 
i-C| CM CM CM CM- CM Kl Kl Kl Kl Kl Kl Kl Ml ~ O 



. O O O Ol 

i = x x x; z x z 



I X X X X|X X 



Attachment II 
-1W 1 o£ 3 









£b 



t& 



eh 



£$ 



*■ 





H 






N 






H 


7: 


fl 




U 


CM 




X 


U 


UJ 


h- 




CO 


i. 


H 


< 


LU 


1- 


0. 


a 



< ce 

K < i-l 

u.ro 



a 0. 3 

ZHH 
< = . 



D 1 I 

B V) < "» 

o u a a. 

I X M OS X> 

1- < a ' a — p 

tu a: 1 uj Q 1 _i 

ziu r z z o 
1 z ui 300: 

X UJ CB _1 U. Z 

►- U < <• I UI 

;_i UhUUK 

'< O H z z < 

IU U Ui B. H H U 

,X V) 1- l/I I- I- 

m a a < < uj 

>• o u x se cc >— 

1- z < UJ UJ 3 



*o < u. uj u. u. r^ 

,u 1/1 1/1 u 1/1 in m 



r 


1 








r^ X 


« 




j 


z 


r 


< 


< 


X * 


* 


N 


V 


,u u 




X < 


< 


O * 




■0 




X X 


a 


ui < 


«t 


X * 


* 



















: N 


■tr- 




I 




UI 






. N 


Z 




UJ 




a 






) e 


:ui Z 




0.1 













X 


r 




a 


V- 








t- M 


< 




2 


lu 




H 




a: vi 


cc 


r 


s 


X UJ 




t_l 


i IU 


'< w 





a a 




uj -J 


z 




. H 


a. •> 





z z 


a 


a a 


< 


~> 


1 < 


UJ M 




3 3 


3 


Z ce 


cc 


as 


:0 


a a 


1. 


U_ u. 


1/1 


>-i 0. 


U 


a 






K- 



-C I <J 

5 1 < 



1 

; 



: 
: 



i! 



:£ 



M ,1/1 U. 



Attachment II - ;' 
Page Z of S "; - 



r> 



r, 



r 



■ W Z 



3.3- 

i >- z 

o O 3 
OHO 



o < z 

i IZ 3 
OU O 



r-T_l 

?2z 



— • 

O X 

o 
v\ a 

G§ 

ec < ih 
u. z o 

OS I 
Z 3 o 
•< t- o 



I- «£ 
> Ul Ul 
I- Q > 



a ,< y- 

> ,)- z 

o O 3 
o K O 



15 r 

II-lO 



>- o oe 
l_i < 
< o u 



a 

uj a 
r z 



H Z 
CM 

VI y- 



o» m a 

<J* :> Z> 



y- z < 

w < 



,r z u 
a < u. 
,u V) w 



a. r- 



o ui 
o. y- 
iu < 



J- * . 

a * i 



,utsni< <o «; 

llZQU1<<K. 



■a w cc | dxui-u 



iujMa:333za:ct:a 
;aoa.u.u.i/iMCUo 



a: _i 
< D 



o.ui o u 



z z a: z 

N fl ■r ui 
o -o -o -o 






: : 

; ; 

i : 



! : 
i i 



j • 



! ! 

Ul I Ul I 






■ 












Attachment II 



-Page 3 o,f 3^' 






Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Item 7 - File 00-2133 

Department: 

Item: 



Grant Amount: 
Grant Period: 
Source of Funds: 

Required Match: 
Indirect Costs: 
Description: 



Department of Public Health (DPH) 

Resolution authorizing the Department of Public Health, 
Community Mental Health Services, to accept retroactively 
and expend Substance Abuse Mental Health Services 
Administration (SAMHSA) Block Grant funds of $2,110,871 
from the State Department of Mental Health to improve the 
system of care for seriously emotionally disturbed children 
and severely mentally ill adults; providing for ratification of 
action previously taken. 

$2,110,871 ($1,267,104 approved, $843,767 not approved) 

December 1, 2000 through June 30, 2001 (7 months) 

Substance Abuse Mental Health Services Administration 
(SAMHSA) Block Grant distributed by the State Department 
of Mental Health 

None 

Indirect costs are not allowed by the granting agency. 

SAMHSA Block Grant funds in the amount of $2,110,871 
have been allocated to the City to improve the coordination of 
the system of care for chronically mentally ill adults and 
seriously emotionally disturbed children in the City. Grant 
funded activities would include the following: (1) expansion of 
physician time to respond more quickly to psychiatric 
patients leaving San Francisco General Hospital and other 
community hospitals, (2) increase linkages between skilled 
nursing facilities, case managers and patients needing long 
term care, (3) increase mental health education services, (4) 
provide additional services for children and families such as 
targeted services to sexually abused children and to Filipino 
families, and (5) provide transportation and computers 
necessary for the system to operate effectively. Services will 
primarily target the 2,164 adults who are admitted to the 
acute psychiatry inpatient units at San Francisco General 
Hospital and other community hospitals. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

49 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Budget: A summary budget, provided by DPH, is as follows: 

Personnel Services (18.9 FTE positions) 1 $943,251 

Premium Pay 30,000 

Mandatory Fringe Benefits (@ 25 percent) 255,939 

Contract and Operating Expenses 2 881,681 

TOTAL $2,110,871 

A detailed budget for the subject program, provided by DPH, 
is shown in Attachment I. 

Comments: 1. The SAMHSA Block Grant has been awarded to DPH 

through the State Department of Mental Health each year 
for more than ten years. The amount of FY 2000-2001 
funding, $2,110,871, will allow the program to expand for the 
current fiscal year due to an additional $171,477 in one-time 
funding and an increase in the amount of $672,290 in on- 
going funding. The additional funding, totaling an increase of 
$843,767, is in addition to the $1,267,104 in SAMHSA Block 
Grant funds for which expenditures have been approved in 
the original FY 2000-2001 DPH budget as approved by the 
Board of Supervisors. The proposed resolution would 
authorize the DPH to accept and expend the full amount of 
$2,110,871 including the $1,267,104 budgeted for FY 2000- 
2001 and an additional $843,767 in SAMHSA Block Grant 
funds. 

According to Ms. Nancy Presson of the DPH, the Department 
expects $1,939,394 in SAMHSA Block Grant funds to become 
part of the annual allocation provided by the State 
Department of Mental Health to the City. If this amount 
becomes the on-going allocation to DPH, it will represent an 



1 Includes the following: (1) 11.9 FTE positions already approved in the original FY 2000-2001 DPH 
budget as approved by the Board of Supervisors, (2) creates 7.0 FTE positions and reflects more 
actual payment of project staff based on actual payroll which has increased costs from the original 
budget. 

2 Includes the following: (1) $400,000 for expenditures that the Board of Supervisors would approve 
under the proposed resolution, including $120,000 in funding for medical services contracts, 
$1SO,000 for 7 new cars, $100,000 for new computers and software, and (2) $481,681 for the Family 
Mosaic Project, a case management program for seriously emotionally disturbed children, which has 
already been approved in the original FY 2000-2001 DPH budget as approved by the Board of 
Supervisors. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



increase of $672,290 over the $1,267,104 amount originally 
budgeted for SAMHSA funds in FY 2000-2001. 



2. The subject grant would fund the following existing 11.9 
FTE positions, shown in Attachment I, as approved in the 
original FY 2000-2001 DPH budget as approved by the Board 
of Supervisors: 







Number 








of 


Budgeted 


DPH Personnel 


Class 


Positions 


Salarv 


Clerk Typist 


1424 


1.0 


$ 34,151 


Senior Clerk Typist 


1426 


1.0 


43,212 


Administrative Analyst 


1822 


1.0 


52,871 


Mental Health Educator 


2823 


0.6 


33,695 


Social Worker 


2910 


3.0 


138,372 


Psychological Social 


2930 


1.0 


59,163 


Worker 








Marriage, Child & 


2931 


3.0 


183,391 


Family Counselor 








Senior Psychological 


2932 


1.3 


88,607 


Social Worker 









Subtotal Existing Positions 



11.9 



$ 633,462 



The subject grant would fund the following new 7.0 FTE 
positions at DPH, as shown in Attachment I: 





Number 






of 


Budgeted 


DPH Personnel Class 


Positions 


Salarv 


Clerk Typist 1424 


1.5 


$ 25,892 


Administrative Analyst 1822 


2.0 


46,099 


Senior Physician 2232 


1.0 


51,419 


Specialist 






Registered Nurse 2320 


2.1 


70,490 


Mental Health Educator 2823 


0.4 


22.463 


Subtotal New Positions 


7.0 


$216,363 


Temporary Staff 




$ 93,426 


TOTAL COST OF SALARIES 




$943,251 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



The new 7.0 FTE positions would increase data entry 
capability to improve client care and billing, improve long 
term care linkages and services for clients needing locked 
nursing home care, increase mental health prevention 
activities, increase services for children who have been 
sexually abused, improve the contract payment system to 
assure accountability, and increase psychiatrist time to 
improve linkages between the hospital and community 
mental health services. As stated in the proposed resolution, 
the 18.9 FTE positions would be designated "G", or grant- 
funded. The 18.9 FTE positions would terminate when the 
grant expires if the DPH is unable to secure additional grant 
funds. According to Ms. Presson, the new 0.4 FTE Mental 
Health Educator position was filled on December 1, 2001 by 
existing Department personnel. Ms. Presson reports the 
Department is in the process of hiring staff for the other 6.6 
FTE positions, and expects the hiring process to be completed 
by February 1, 2001. 

The subject grant would also fund 4.7 FTE equivalent 
positions already existing at the Bayview Hunters Point 
Foundation, a nonprofit agency, to work on the Family 
Mosaic Project, as shown in Attachment II. Expenditures for 
these 4.7 FTE equivalent positions were approved in the 
original FY 2000-2001 DPH budget as approved by the Board 
of Supervisors. The Bayview Hunters Point Foundation 
would be responsible for determining whether these positions 
would expire if the DPH is unable to secure additional grant 
funds. 

3. As shown in Attachment III, the subject grant would fund 
the purchase of approximately 7 vehicles at a total cost of 
$180,000 to replace vehicles at clinic cites that have high 
repair costs and are 8 to 15 years old. These 7 vehicles would 
help to assure transportation for clients and case managers 
to get to critical clinic, benefits and housing appointments. 
The new cars would reduce costs to the City to repair the 
older cars that have repair costs of up to $7,000 per car per 
year. Additionally, as shown in Attachment IV, the subject 
grant would purchase the following computer equipment and 
software, at a total cost of $100,000: (1) ten new computers 
which would enhance the information systems network and 
allows the DPH to share data systems and e-mail to enable 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



better patient care coordination, (2) 11 licenses for the 
software product used to authorize mental health services at 
four clinic sites, and (3) installation of mental health services 
network connections at four mental health clinic sites, which 
would improve data entry, eligibility and coordination of care 
throughout the mental health system. 

According to Ms. Presson, future maintenance and operating 
costs for these 7 cars and computers will be covered by on- 
going SAMHSA Block Grants. Ms. Presson states that if the 
Department is unable to secure additional grant funds, then 
future maintenance and operating costs for these computers 
and cars will be covered by DPH's annual Operating Budget. 

4. As shown in Attachment I, the subject grant would 
provide $120,000 in funds for medical services contract 
expenses. Of these medical services contract costs, $90,000 
would be used to expand DPH's current contract with 
Westside Community Mental Health, a nonprofit agency that 
provides services to clients with substance abuse and mental 
health issues. The remaining $30,000 in medical services 
contract expenses would be used to expand DPH's current 
contract with West Bay Filipino Services, a nonprofit agency 
that provides mental health services to Filipino families. 

5. Ms. Presson advises that the subject grant has been 
accepted by DPH, and therefore the proposed resolution 
provides for retroactive acceptance of these grant funds. 
However, to date, none of the $843,767 in additional funds 
beyond the previously appropriated grant amount of 
$1,267,104 have been expended by the DPH. According to 
Ms. Presson, the SAMHSA grant expansion activities will 
start December 26, 2000, and continue indefinitely as long as 
the subject SAMHSA Block Grant is in place. 

6. Ms. Monique Zmuda of the DPH states that the State 
Department of Mental Health, the granting agency, allows 
the subject one-time grant funds of $171,477 to carry-over to 
the Fiscal Year 2001-2002 if the subject grant funds are not 
expended by June 30, 2001, the end of the grant period. 

7. As already approved in DPH's FY 2000-2001 budget, the 
subject grant continues to fund $102,611 in rent at 1309C 
Evans for the office space for the Family Mosaic Project. In 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 
S3 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



December of 1999, the Board of Supervisors approved the 
lease at 1309C Evans Avenue, which expires on June 30, 
2003. 

8. Attachment V is a Grant Application Information Form, as 
prepared by DPH, which includes a Disability Access 
Checklist. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Attachment I 







HI 


■n 










i ° 


i , | | i 1 iMtMiroro roiro:ro,roiroiro:ro,roiro 


_» 


_^ 


_! 


_» 


T 1 "0 




O 










O 


Tl CO 






1 


cj 












■D 


. ! 1 ita 


CO CD CO CO CO (O (O CD (B!U CO N 





CD 


o> 


Oi 


*> CD 




CO 












-< 


> 

2 






— 


3 












1:1 




to OJIU eg CO -*l-*l-*iWlfO U CO 


M 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro -1 












3 


















' 


]ro 


NUIj.JOlOiOOIMOiOH 


ro 


ro 


CD 


*>■ 


j> to 




% 










3 











< 












= 


: ! M 

I , • i 1 1 




i , 1 1 ! I ! 












O 
3 














TJ 






CO 






a 
< 

to' 

a 

a 




3 
o 
to 

o' 












3' 

CO. 

m 

X 

•a 


1 i ! ! i ! 




' l | i 












to 

CO 

ro 
3 














CD 

5" 

a 


ro 





> 

CO 

■< 

CO 




? 




H 

o 


o 


Ol 


m 

n 


CD 


jis|o!3iH 






cp 


P oj ™ i ni 1 to 10 


C0J§:|P3i-JDIC0 
O m 1 CD In IP 


CLIO. 


at 


n 


O 
















DJ 
3 

> 

3. 


CD 
c 
a 

(Q 

a 




■o 
3 

D 

o 




O 

TJ 

a 

3 


o 

3 

TJ 

cr 

o 

3 

p= 

CO 


» 


c 

3 

CD 


Q. 
CD 

C0_ 

CO 

ro 
2 


ro 

CD 
to 




H.ia. 

co'Sl 

,0 


en !=i. 

co!§ 

tu p 

to tj 

3.1 Q) 
CD ^ 


3 

TJ 

O 

2 
< 

01 
CI 

0' 






TJ 


3- 

00 




Pp- 

to 00 

•< fa 

O 1 CD 


ych Socia 
irrlage.Chil 
image, Chii 






ro 







CD 


a 

CO 

g 

ro 


3 

51 

X 

CD 

CJ_ 

m 

a. 
3 




xj 

Q 
CD 

a. 




ro 


a. 

z 


T3 

3- 

< 
cn 
0" 

Co' 
3 


3 
5' 

to_ 

3 
< 


3 
3 

3 
< 




I 

t3 


ro 
H 
to' 


CD 
^r 
H 
>< 

a 

to' 




CD 
to 














c_ 
c 

•< 

ro 






H 

m 

O 

Tl 

O 














5' 






o 

CD 

o 

o 






to -^ 
OoCQ 

*iCD 

-n.« 




to 

3" 

to 








0) 




Q. a 

S.JJ0 

§ Pi 

11 


O. CD- 

T1JT1 

cj a 

3 3 


O 

ro 








c 

CD 


to 

CD 


CO 

n 

CD 
O 

s. 


> 
3 

01 

< 


> 

3 

CU_ 


~ 










TJ 













O 
c_ 




> 

TJ 

m 

CO 
















HI 






3 






3 cd 






























cn 


E0 




















c 




c - 
















3 






3 




cni^ 




3 

cr 


■0 






CD 


™r< 


■< -< 

















to' 
















O 

2. 










3 

CD 




O 

cn 
m 






















o_ 






to 1 


















O 


O 
































3". 










CO 


































v\X. 











3 





O 
3 

































3 











"ro 






-1 
































O M 










3 


3 


3 
























































































to 




to 












































































to 


CO 










CD 


CD 


- 














































































M 










O 


!o 










































































1 




O 


TJ 










"^ 


"■ 


^ 














































































O 


3- 






























































































< 

CD 


■< 






























































































3 


co 






























































































D 


•a 






























































































O 





































































































Co' 


















































































"55 






























































































3 












































C 
















c 




































o 




















-J 






-j 


-J 


■s 


-o. 


-0 




r— 


-^1 


-j 


> 

TJ 
O 


~0 


-0 


-vl 


^1 


-0 






3 




































to 




















CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CO 


CD 


CD 


CD 


ro 


CD 


CD 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 










































3" 

o 

o 
3 




















O 


O 


O 


O 


O 





O 


O 


O 




O 


O 























3 






















































mjr 


O 


s 


0J 


rn 


T) 


c_ 


P 


C- 


CD 


Z 


O 


2 


o_ 


T 3 


z 


Tl 










r> 
































































r~ 






Tl 


CD 


Tl 


ro 


CO 
CD 
N 




CD 


DJ 










■a 
































n 

ro 

co 

CO 

g 




















□3 

a 

CO 

3 
0" 


O 
c 

CD' 


CO 
3 


<: 

Q. 
O 
3 
O 


3 

a. 
ro 
to 


CO 

CD 
CD 
CD 


O 
3" 

3 


O 
a) 

3 

DJ 
< 
CD 


> 

3 
ro 


7^ 
S 


3 

CD 




s 




s 


-v 
3 

CD 

CO. 




s 


to 
O 

c 

CO 






m 
3 




■0 

< 
ro 
a. 


























































CC 


O 






& 




+ 



























CO 
































i 


























CO 3 

3r| 










j> 






















>< 
ro 




c 

o_ 
































CD 




































O 






















CD 




Cd 






























































































ro 
































en 




































cd" 


























































CI 
CD 
O 


























i 
















































































hO 












| 




































































o 


























































CO 
















































































































































en 












































CD 




































3 
o 

o 




















on 


CD 


J> 


AlCO 


CO 


■&- 


£- 


o> 


en 


on 


en 


en 


ro 


ro 


cn 


ro 


ro 






•a 












































































































































CD 
















































































O 
3 














g 












_l 


_K Li 


_l 


_x 


_i 


_» 


_v 


N 





_» 


ro 


_» 


_i 


_^ 


_L 






5 




































cc_ 
3 




















CO 


en 


b 


bib 


b 


b 


b 


b 


b 


b 




b 





b 


b 


CD 


b 






m 
































































o'o 























CD 











O 

























































ro 






1-0 


rj 


ro 


(0 


ro 


ro 


_+ 


j 


_^ 


ro 


N3 


N3 






ro 


j 


_, 


_k 
























































CD 








en 


CO 


CO 


ro 


ro 


-~i 


-j 


^j 


S 




CD 









CD 


ro 


ro 










































to 














CO 






CD 


CO 


en 


Ol 


j> 


*- 


CJl 


en 


cn 


tv 


CO 


CO 









f>. 


CO 


CD 










































8 














K 






CD 


O 





g 


-»j 


r^ 


M 


fcj 


t£ 


t£ 


g 


g 






CO 


tS 




CD 






XI 






















































ro 


fo 


M 


N> 


?o 


ro 










ro 


to 






ro 


































































a) 


CTl 




j> 


Co 


CO 




•J 




4> 


cn 


cn 


-e'- 


ro 





CD 


CO 


CO 
























































en 






en 


cn 












CO 


CD 


CD 


">J 


CD 


CD 


en 


CO 


ro 


ro 
























































CO 






J> 


-fc- 


CD 


CO 


J> 


CO 


-0 


CD 


0) 


CO 


^ 




en 


"a 


CD 


ro 


CD 


CO 






















































































CD 


cn 

CO 


























































































■ 


























CD 












j\j> 


JO 






















_, 






















































c 






=c 


_. 
















-tv 




J* 


_fc 


_fc 




_x 






ro 


ro 


CD 


















































CO- 






-^ 


•X 
















CO 




o 


o 


CO 




CO 






M 


en 


~J 


CO 








en 


CO 


O 


CD 


cn 


en 


J> 




£> 


CI 


CO 




CD 


-J 


cn 


JN 


CO 


CO 












CO 










o 


o 








o 


o 


o 




O 






CO 




^J 













co 






CO 


CO 


cn 


y 


on 


O) 


J?. 


J> 


:t 


J> 


ro 


ro 





CO 






3 

H 








~a 










CO 


CO 




en 




"o 


b 


"o 




"o 








"00 


Cd 


"0 








00 


on 


CO 


CO 


"*. 


"j> 


CI 


cn 


cn 


en 




Vl 


"ro 


"00 


"ro 


"cd 


"ro 


N 























^J 


-J 




CO 




o 


o 


o 




O 






CD 


CD 


O 











en 


01 


CD 


CD 


ro 


ro 


cn 


on 


O'i 


CO 


s 






ro 


CO 


j> 


en 


■tv 












CD 












c; 


-* 




-* 




o 


o 


o 




O 






O 


CI) 


5 











ro 


-J 


O 


O 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


M 


00 


o> 


■^ 


on 


cc 


■^ 


CJ 


£v 


CO 







































































































































































































< 


















IN] 


M 












































































to 

CD 

a 
























» 




t» 














"ro 


N) 


CD 












































































o 


o 


en 




Nj 






ro 


en 


-J 


CO 


CD 






en 


CO 


cd 


0) 


en 


en 


i- 


*• 


». 


a 


CD 







■c- 


en 


-t^ 


rv 


% 






















a 








o 


o 


o 




O 






CD 


en 


Cd 





CO 






*» 


£ 


NO 




CD 


(O 


C: 


cci 


a 


cn 


H 


00 




O 


ro 


CO 


en 






















CD 


CO 




0) 




"o 


"o 


~o 




"o 








CD 


M 





-^ 






"en 


"0 




















".0 


.-- 


a 


"cc 


"ro 


pa 


























N 


^J 




CO 




o 


o 


o 




o 






CD 




en 





CO 






NO 


CO 




-vICT) 


CD 


ro 


ro 


ro 


en 


! 1 


i ,1 




CD 


> 




CD 


on 






















o 












o 


o 


o 




o 






O 


(C 







01 






S 





» 


0>'OJ 


CO 


*. 


-1- 


*> 


cn 





-~J 


CO 


CD 




IS 


rv. 


















































































































































































































































CO 


























CO 


CO 










b 


























































O 


























O 


O 


v 


k, 

































































TJ 


























T] 


T.1 


T.i 


11 






Tl 


























































TJ 




• 






















Q 


a 


O 


9 






t5 
























































































r > 


K 






















































































8 


CD 




c^ 






u 



















































































b 


O 


c~ 






5 
























































-* ■* 


■* "* -Ml 





Attachment II 



SAMHSA BUDGET DETAIL 

Family Mosaic Project 

FY 00-01 (July 1 , 2000-June 30, 2001 ) 

DESCRIPTION 

EQUIPMENT 
Copier 

SUPPLIES 

Postage & supplies 

TRAVEL 

Client transportation 

OTHER EXPENSES 
Rent 

Telephone 

Duplication & Printing 
Msc. 
SUBCONTRACTS: 

Title 



TOTAL 



FTEs 



Names 



Subtotal 



Foster Care Planner 

Operation Clerk 

Research Data Manager 

Sr. Accountant 

Community Outreach Specialist 

Community OutTeach Specialist 

Administrative Aid 

sub-total: 

Total Salaries: 
Fringe Benefits 



0.50 Nicole Wilford 


25.752 


1.00 YuleDom 


31.394 


0.50 LucyCoMn 


16.500 


1 .00 Connie Relojo 


43.000 


1.00 JayAvila 


36.792 


0.50 Jenny Gong 


17.510 


0.20 Fernandez 


7.130 


4.70 


178.078 




178.078 


24% 


42.739 



Sub-total: 



220.817 



Consulting 
Data Entry 
Student/MD Stipends 

TOTAL DIRECT COSTS 
INDIRECT COSTS 



37.764 
5.550 
15.000 

279.131 
27.703 



TOTAL SUBCONTRACTS: 
TOTAL SAMHSA BUDGET DETAIL AT FMP 



12/12/00 



Community Mental Health Services 
Proposed Vehicle Purchase 



Attachment III 



Trade-in 








99-00 






ID# 


Year, Make, Model 


License 


Mileage 


Oper Cost 






567-321 


91 Chevrolet Cavalier 


E348842 


256,334 


5,914 






567-322 


91 Ford Crown Victoria 


E399910 


232,834 


3,845 






567-510 


82 Chevrolet G30 Van 


E478992 


51,000 


3,087 






567-600 


82 Dodge Ram Van 


E781308 


56,850 


1,733 






567Y316 


86 Chevrolet Caprice Wgn 


E482364 


68,695 


1,613 






567Y511 


86 Chevrolet G20 Van 


E498701 


28,490 


2,652 
18,844 






Purchase 








EPA 






For 


Year, Make, Model 


Type 


Cost 


Grant 


Fund Source 


Reason 


MOST 


2000 Toyota Camry LE" 


CNG 


23,385 


3,000 


SAMHSA 


New 


PES 


2001 Ford Crown Victoria* 


Gas 


20,751 




SAMHSA 


Replace 


MACT 


2001 Honda Civic GX 


CNG 


20,483 




SAMHSA 


Replace 


MFC 


2001 Ford 12 pass van 


CNG 


23,475 


4,500 


SAMHSA 


Replace 


OM! 


2000 Toyota Camry LE 


CNG 


23,135 


3,000 


SAMHSA 


Replace 


Geri 


2001 Honda Civic GX 


CNG 


20,483 


4,500 


SAMHSA 


New 


M ISC 


2001 Honda Civic GX 


CNG 


20,483 


4,500 


SAMHSA 


Replace 


SE Child 


2001 Ford 12 pass van 


CNG 


23,475 


4,500 


SAMHSA 


Replace 


MOST 


2000 Toyota Camry LE" 


CNG 


23,385 


3,000 


AB2034 


New 


SubTotal 






199,055 


27,000 






Sales Tax 






16,920 








Total Cost 






215,975 








Less grants 




27,000 








Net Total Cost 




188,975 









'Includes $1 ,000 for rear seat enclosure 
"Includes vinyl seat covers for rear seats 



Funds available: 

SAMHSA HMHMRCGRANTS HMSSOC 01 
AB2034 HMHMRCGRANTS HMINSV 00 
GF HMHMCC730515s/o 04951 

Total Available 



180,000 

26,802 

9,173 

215.975 



Attachment I 



Clinical/Older Adult Information Systems Project 




i 






- 


Synopsis: . 
The Clinical/Older Adult Information Systems Project will allow four clinical programs to 
participate in a wide range of clinical and financial tools available on the City of San 
Francisco Intranet and the larger Internet.The project upgrades network infrastructure 
and adds personal computer hardware and software. Services provided will include 
email, file and print, secure backup, MS Office, Internet and, as needed, access to the 
following databases: Insyst, eCura, Me'ds, Behavioral Health Data Warehouse and • - 
SMS. 

Clinics to benefit include: 

Southeast-Mission Geriatric Services 
Central City Senior's Unit 
Mission' Mental Health Team II 
Center for Special Problems 








QTY 


Item Cost Extension 


4 


Network routers 


$3,800.00 


$15,200.00 


4 


Data line installs 


$3,000.00 


$12,000.00 


4 


Closet switches 


$2,500.00 


$10,000.00 


10 


HP computers with NT, Monitors, software 


$3,150.00 


$31,500.00 


1 


Hard Drive Ghost Building for above 


$302.00 


$302.00 


11 


eCura licenses 


$2,818.00 


$30,998.00 














TOTAL 


$100,000.00 













































































































R. Look, 12/14/00 



Page 1 of 1 

58 



Attachment V 

r~i ... • '• Page 1 of 2 

File Number: & 

(provided by the Board of Supervisors 

Grant Information Form 

(Effective January 2000) 

Purpose: Accompanies proposed Board of Supervisors resolutions authorizing a 
Department to accept and expend grant funds. 

1 . Grant Title: SAMHSA Mental Health Block Grant 

2. Department Department of Public Health, Population Health and Prevention, 
Community Mental Health Services. 

3. Contact Person: Nancy Presson Telephone: 255-3632 

4. Grant Approval Status (check one): 

[ X] Approved by funding agency [ ] Not yet approved ' 

5. Amount of Grant Funding Approved or Applied for: $2,110,871 for 2000/01; 
$1,939,394 for 2001/02 

6a. Matching Funds Required: $0 
b. Source(s) of matching funds (if applicable): 

7a. Grant Source Agency; Federal Substance Abuse Mental Health Services Admin, 
b. Grant Pass-Through Agency (if applicable): State Department of Mental Health. 

8. Proposed Grant Project Summary: This grant is used to improve the system to 
provide services to seriously emotionally disturbed children and severely mentally ill 
adults. It includes expansion of increased physician response to clients coming from 

• the hospital, increased linkage to patients needing long term care, increased mental 
health education services, additional services for children and families,- and 
consultation, flexible wrap-around dollars, transportation and computers necessary 
for the system to operate effectively. 

9. Grant Project Schedule: 

Start-Date: 12/1/00 End-Date: 6/30/01 (It is expected that 

§1,939,394 in grant funds will become part of the ongoing State allocation to the 
Department in future funding years; $171,477 is specifically designated as one-time 
funds for 00/01. 

10. Number of new positions created and funded: 7.0 FTE 

1 1 . If new positions are created, explain the disposition of employee(s) once the grant 
ends:_ 

It is expected that these grant funds are going to become part of the ongoing annual 
. allocation provided by the State Department of Mental Health, so end date of the 
grant should not create a funding problem. 

l 
10/13/2000 



Attachment V 
Fage 2 ot 2 
12. a. Amount to be spent on contractual services: $120,000 

b.) Will contractual services be put out to bid?. Expansion of current contracts 
c.) If so, will contract services help to further the goals of the department's 
MBE7WBE requirements? : It is expected that it will be non-profit agencies that 
apply for these funds. If not, then the contract services are expected to further the 
department's MBE/WBE goals. 

d) Is this likely to be one-time or ongoing request for contracting out? Ongoing . 

1 3a. Does this budget include indirect costs? No 

b. If no, why are indirect costs not included? : 

[ x] Not allowed by granting agency [ ] To maximize use of grant funds on direct ' 

services 
[ ] Other (please explain): 

14. Any other significant grant requirements or comments: 

"Disability Access Checklist*** 

15. This Grant is intended for activities at (check all that apply): 

[>j] Existing Site(s) [x] Existing Structure(s) [)j Existing Program(s) or Service(s) 

[ ] Rehabilitated Site(s) [ ] Rehabilitated Structure(s) [ ] New Program(s) or Service(s) 

[ ] New Site(s) [ ] New Structure(s) 

16. The Departmental ADA Coordinator and/or the Mayor's Office on Disability have reviewed the proposal 
and concluded that the project as proposed will be in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and 
all other Federal, State and local access laws and regulations and will allow the full inclusion of persons with 
disabilities, or will require unreasonable hardship exceptions, as described in the comments section: 

Comments: 



Departmental or Mayor's Office of Disability Reviewer: Norman Nickens Deputy Director 

(Name) (Title) 



Date Reviewed: 



nrt*™ KL^ 



(Signature) 

Department Approval: Mitchell Katz, M.D. Director of Health 

(Title) 




60 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Item 8 - File 00-1583 

Department: 

Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 

Description: 



Department of Public Health (DPH) 

Hearing to consider the release of $248,579 of funds held on 
reserve for the Department of Public Health for Phase III of 
the Tobacco Prevention Program. 

$248,579 

$1,500,000 in proceeds from a Settlement and Consolidation 
Agreement with the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company- 
regarding Mangini v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et .al. 

In 1997 San Francisco, along with 13 other California cities 
and counties, reached a settlement agreement with R.J. 
Reynolds Tobacco Company in Mangini v. R.J. Reynolds 
Tobacco Company, et .al. Under the settlement agreement, 
San Francisco received $1,500,000 to finance education, 
enforcement, and advertising campaigns to discourage 
smoking by minors. In September of 1998 the Board of 
Supervisors appropriated $1,500,000 to fund media, health 
education, and enforcement programs and placed $553,405 
on reserve (File 98-140). In December of 1998 the Finance 
and Labor Committee released $73,636 of the $553,405 to 
fund enforcement services provided by the Department of 
Agriculture, Weights, and Measures through a work order to 
DPH, and continued to reserve $479,769 (File 98-2003). 

In August of 2000 the Board of Supervisors released an 
additional $211,190 to fund a media campaign designed to 
discourage minors from cigarette smoking. The Board of 
Supervisors continued to reserve the balance of $268,579 to 
be used for community-based intervention programs to 
discourage smoking, pending selection by DPH of contractors 
and submission of budget details (File 00-1305). If the Board 
of Supervisors approves the proposed release of $248,579 in 
reserved funds, there will be a remaining balance of $20,000 
on reserve. 

DPH is requesting that $248,579 in reserved funds be 
released to fund two contracts with community-based 
organizations. The first contract would be for $103,519 with 
Intersection for the Arts/Youth Speaks, a non-profit 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

61 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Budget: 



organization selected through a Request for Proposals (RFP) 
process, which will use the currently popular youth art form 
of poetry competitions, or poetry slams, as a vehicle for 
working with youth on issues related to tobacco use. The 
second contract for $145,060 would be with the San Francisco 
Study Center, a non-profit organization selected through an 
RFP process to serve as a fiscal sponsor to two 
subcontracting organizations also selected by DPH through 
an RFP process: Infusion-One and the Booker T. Washington 
Community Services Center, as stated in Attachment I, 
provided by DPH (see Comment No. 4). The $145,060 
contract with the San Francisco Study Center includes 
$50,000 for each of the two subcontracting organizations to 
serve as seed money for the organizations' community 
capacity building efforts, as described in Comment No. 3. 

A summary budget for the $248,579 in reserved funds is as 
follows: 



Item 


Amount 


Contract with Intersection for the Arts/ 
Youth Speaks (See Attachment II) 

Contract with San Francisco Study Center 

Seed Funding to Infusion-One (See Attachment II) 
Seed Funding to Booker T. Washington 

Community Service Center (See Attachment II) 
Media Costs 

Advertisements in Movie Theaters 

Advertisements on Television and Radio 

Production of Press Kits 

Subtotal Media 

Promotional Items and Training (See Comment No. 5). 
Fiscal Sponsor Fee (See Comment No. 5). 

Contract Subtotal 


$103,519 

$50,000 

50,000 

8,496 

14,004 

2.500 

$25,000 

5,060 

15.000 

$145,060 


Total 


8248,579 



Comments: 



Attachment II provides details to support the above budget. 

1. According to Ms. Monique Zmuda of DPH, Phase I of the 
Tobacco Prevention Program included research identifying 
the type of media messages that would be effective in 
discouraging youth from smoking, and the target group of 
youth, ages 14 to 17. During Phase I, the Tobacco Prevention 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Program established an advisory committee, which developed 
criteria for reviewing tobacco prevention advertisements, 
reviewed and tested the effectiveness of existing 
advertisements, and selected four existing advertisements 
and recommended production of four new advertisements for 
the Tobacco Prevention Program. Phase I also included 
Police Department enforcement of the tobacco sales ban to 
minors and City Department of Consumer Assurance 
enforcement of the ban on outdoor advertising of tobacco 
products and self-service tobacco vending machines. 
According to Ms. Zmuda, Phase II of the Tobacco Prevention 
Program funded a major media campaign aimed at youth and 
an evaluation to assess the impact of the media campaign on 
youth behavior. Ms. Zmuda advises that this evaluation is 
still in progress and includes collecting baseline data on 
approximately 700 San Francisco youth regarding their 
beliefs, behaviors and then re-collecting data from this same 
cohort of youth to assess the impact of the media campaign. 

2. As noted previously, DPH proposes to use the $248,579 in 
reserved funds to fund services provided by two community- 
based organizations and to provide seed funding to two 
additional community-based organizations. Ms. Zmuda 
advises that on August 21, 2000, DPH issued two RFPs. The 
first RFP sought a contractor to provide "tobacco control 
through the arts" projects that used art as a means of 
educating youth about tobacco use. In October of 2000, DPH 
selected Intersection for the Arts/Youth Speaks for the 
$103,579 contract based upon the organization's established 
programs using youth poetry competitions. The contract with 
Intersection for the Arts/Youth Speaks would last 18 months, 
beginning on January 1, 2001 and terminating on June 30, 
2002. 

3. For the second RFP, Ms. Zmuda advises that DPH sought 
to fund community capacity-building projects to change 
environmental factors promoting tobacco use, such as tobacco 
advertising and easy access to tobacco products by minors. 
Ms. Zmuda advises that in October of 2000, DPH selected 
two community-based organizations, Infusion-One and the 
Booker T. Washington Community Services Center, to 
receive $50,000 apiece as seed money for their community 
capacity building activities, explained in Attachment III, 
provided by DPH. Ms. Zmuda advises that these funds would 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

fi3 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



be channeled to the two community-based organizations 
through a fiscal sponsor, discussed below in Comment No. 4. 

4. According to Ms. Zmuda, DPH had issued an additional 
RFP in November of 1998 to fund several community 
capacity building projects funded with various sources (not 
necessarily related to tobacco use), including the subject 
reserved funds. The San Francisco Study Center was selected 
and will serve as fiscal sponsor to two of the organizations 
receiving the subject reserved funds (Infusion-One and the 
Booker T. Washington Community Services Center). As 
stated in Attachment I, provided by DPH, the San Francisco 
Study Center will be responsible for authorizing payments, 
dispersing funds and providing on-going training, technical 
assistance, and support services to the community-based 
organizations. Funds will be dispersed based on monthly 
invoices submitted by community-based organizations to the 
San Francisco Study Center for reimbursement. Ms. Zmuda 
advises that DPH requires such a fiscal sponsor because the 
fiscal sponsor can provide needed accounting and 
organizational assistance to the community-based 
organizations, which DPH would be unable to provide itself. 
The contract with the San Francisco Study Center would last 
18 months, beginning on January 1, 2001 and terminating on 
June 30, 2002. 

5. According to Ms. Zmuda, the Fiscal Sponsor Fee of $15,000 
included in the above budget for the contract with the San 
Francisco Study Group consists of $1,250 per month for 
administrative overhead, including accounting personnel, 
facilities maintenance, insurance, copy machine, office 
supplies. The $5,060 for Promotional Items and Training 
includes the purchase of T-shirts ($720), movie tickets ($300), 
rental of training space ($300), speaker honoraria ($260), 
registration for 12 youth participants to attend the Youth 
Tobacco Control Summit ($600), travel for 12 youths to the 
summit ($1,800), lodging at the summit for 12 youths 
($1,080). Ms. Zmuda advises that the Youth Tobacco Control 
Summit will be sponsored by the California Youth Advocates 
Network and will take place in Santa Cruz, California in 
August of 2001. 



Recommendations: Approve the proposed release of reserves. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

-» .i 



Attachment I 



San Francisco Study Center 

Exhibit A-4 

Mangini Funds 



Services To Be Provided: 



The fiscal sponsor for the Community Capacity Building Training and Development 
Center for the Tobacco Free Project will be the San Francisco Study Center. Tobacco 
Free Project will authorize all payment requests and act as coordinator and liaison with 
the community based organizations to collect and forward approved invoices with back- 
up documentation and progress reports to the Study Center in a timely manner. The Study 
Center will: 

1 . Disburse funds in the amount of £50,000 each to 2 community based organizations 
that were selected by the Tobacco Free Project through a competitive process. 
Selected CBO's will integrate a community capacity building process into their 
organization goal to address a tobacco control issue that impacts youth. Disbursement 
will be paid based on monthly invoices submitted by CBO's to the Tobacco Free 
Project Director for approval and subsequently submitted to the Study Center for 
payment Invoices will be in accordance with approved budgets for each of the 2 
CBO's and Youth Speaks including payment for training and travel expenses incurred 
to attend a tobacco control conference. 

2. Disburse funds for payment of training costs associated with provision of training ■ 
services to the Youth Speaks and Community Capacity Buhding Projects. Costs 
include rental of framing space, fraining stipends, refreshments) and speaker 

. honoraria. 

c 
o 

3. Upon approval of Tobacco Free Project Director, provide payment for purchase 
and/or development of promotional items, educational, incentives, media related 
costs, and equipment costs. 

4. Disburse funds for payment of costs associated with, focus groups for testing of media 
message for counter advertising campaign. 



Source: Department of Public Health 



I:\meIe\contmod\MangSFSTDYexhibitA 



Attachment II 
Page 1 of k 



Intersection for the Arts/Youth Speaks 



Check one: New X 

Contractor Name and Address: 
Intersection for the Arts/Youth Speaks 
2169 Folsom Street, Suite 100 
San Francisco, CA 94110 



Modification 



Page A 
Renewal 



Funding Source: Mangini 
Contract Term: 1/1/01 -6/30/02 



EXPENDITURES 










FY 00-01 


FY01-02 


FY 00-02 


Personnel Expenditure 
















Total Salaries (See Paga B) 


$ 30,000 


$ 32.000 


S 62.000 


Fringo Benefits 


32,200.00 


52,420.00 


54,620.00 










Total Personnel Expenses 


$ 32.200 


S 34,420 


5 65,620 










Operating Expenses: 








Publicity 


$500.00 


51,000.00 


51,500.00 


Design 


5500.00 


S516.67 


51,016.67 


Outreach Materials 


S500.00 


5500.00 


51.000.00 


Posters & T-Shirt Reproduction 


51,600.00 


51,550.00 


53,050.00 


T-Shirt artwork &Design 


$1,450.00 


$0.00 


$1,450.00 


Administrative fees 


56,000.00 


58,916.00 


S14, 916.00 


Office Supplies 


5350.00 


.5450.00 


5310.00 


Venue & Equipment Rental 


51,340.00 


51.700.00 


53.040.00 


Documentation (Film, audio, photo) 


5350.00 


5400.00 


5750.00 


Postage c o 


51,000.00 


51,120.00 


52, 120.00 


Indirect @ 7% 


53,500.00 


53,746.33 


S7.245.33 
















Total Operating Expenses 


516,930.00 


519.909.00 


S35.899.00 


Total Direct Expense 


S13,490.00 


516.162.67 


529,652.67 


Indirect Expenses 


53,500.00 


S3.746.33 


57.246.33 


Total Expenses 


S49.190.0C 


554,329.00 


5103,519.00 



Source: Department of Public Health 



l:\Eric\Cantr2Gts\Mangini\Youth Speaks\Youtha~T 



Attachment II 
Page 2 of A 



Tobacco Free Neighborhoods 
Community Capacity Building Projects 

Project Budget 



Infusion-One Youth Leadership Development 
1331 Evans Avenue 
San Francisco, CA 94124 



PERSONELL 

Executive Director 7,500.00 

(. 15 FTE of $50,000 annual satary*$7,500) . 

Project Coordinator 12,500.00 

(.SO FTE of $25,000 annual salary = $12,500) 

Administrative Support . 7,000.00 

(.25.FTE of S28,0€0 annual salary = $7,000) 

Total Salaries . 27,000.00 

Fringe Benefits 5,940.00 

(Medic&PDental/Retir&m&nt) 

Total Personnel Expenses S 32,940.00 

Operating Expenses: 
Occupancy 

16% @S120 per month = 51,440 '' 

Teleph0na 564 00 

S47 per month = $564 ao *- uu 

Project Supplies/Meetings , fln 

$40 per month = $480 uu 

Transportation 36Q QQ 

Outmgs/Bus passes 530 per month = $360 

Printing/Advertisement . 5g QQ 

Fliers, brochures, newsletter 

Advocate Stipends 

6 advocates @ S145 x 12 months = $8,700 a./OO.OO 

Meeting Space Rental 

Bayview Opera House 425.00 

Event Rental 5425 

Fiscal Sponsor Fee (Tides Center) 4,500.00 

Total S 17,060.00 

Projact Total S 50,000.00 



l:^rtc\C«n!raaaVvlflnolnI\Jnfuaton-One\infu»tJudiu«Wie*ljon,>(|s 



Attachment II 
Paee 3 of 4 



Booker T. Washington Community Service Center Budget Justification 

January 1, 2001 - December 31, 2001 

Source of Fuuds: Mangini 



Personnel Expenditures 

Salary 

.50 FTE Coordinator $29,045 annual salary 

Fringe Benefits 

Medical, dental and vision @$239/month @ 12 monlhs 

Payroll Tai 

10% of salary and fringe benefits 

Total of Personnel Expenditure 

Operating Expenses 

Stipends 

Rate of $70/month for 8 Advocates @ 12 months 
Rate of $375/month for 2 interns @ 12 months 

Rent 

$250 per month for 12 months 

Utilities 

$ 1 50 per month for 1 2 months 

Telephone 

$50 per month for 12 months 

Office Supplies^ 

Basic supplies including paper, printing, postage, etc. 
Rate of 5100/month for 12 monlhs 

Meeting Expenses 

This category includes food for meeting, travel, etc. 

Rate of $153. 66 per month for 12 months, 

Consultant 

Community organizing consultant that is specific to the 
African American population. Rale of $25 per hour for 
40 hours. 

Incentives 

Youth trips as incentives -which aid in fostering group 
cohesion and retention in the program 



$14,523.00 

S 2,868.00 

$ 1,739.00 
$19,130.00 

$ 6,720.00 
$ 9,000.00 

S 3,000.00 
$ 1,800.00 
$ 600.00 

$ 1,200.00 
$ 1,844.00 

$ 1,000.00 

$ 1,000.00 



liOJjli>\ContT»id\M*neini\HTW\BTV/ Ju«ifiM{ior\.<lo» 



ncv-i 1 -?aaa n:cw 



4152410494 



68 



5&>. 



P. 04 



Attachment II 
Page 4 of 4 



Total Operating Expenses 526,164.00 

Total Direct Expenses $45,294.00 

Indirect Expenses s 4 70 g q q 
Rate of 1 5% of total personnel expenditure 

T^tal Expenses 550,000.00 



!:VEiSe>CoTOTt«iVM«oiuu\BTW\BTW JuuiEittiaadoo 



TOTAL P. 04 

69 



R r . Attachment III, Page 1 of 
°- contract with the San Fran cisco Study Center in the amount of Si 45,060 to pr ovide fiscal 
sponsor ser vices for two Community Capacity Building projects . 

1 ) The San Franc?sco Study Center was selected as a contractor through a competitive 

bid process. The contractor will provide fiscal sponsor services to two community- 
based organizations that were selected through a competitive bid process. The 
agencies selected to implement the Community Capacity Building process are 
Infusion-One located in the Bayview and Booker T. Washington Community 
Services Center located in the Western Addition. Each agency will be funded in the 
amount of $50,000. 

Infusion-One is a non-profit community based organization in the Bayview which 
has for five years provided youth leadership development training to youth 11-19 
years old. Their training includes critical thinking library research, public speaking 
event planning and community organizing. Infusion-One has a close working 
relationship with the San Francisco Unified School District and has provided 3 
academic, athletic and life skills classes to students at 5 schools and one after school 
program in Bayview Hunter's Point. 

prevention, academic coaching, community science .voS, en ^ 

«2f«S ^° n80ing teClMiCal aSSiS,MM »< '-"'"8 from 
include: J ff ^ agenC ' cs «™nunity capacity process will 

a ) Rgcnjjt and Train Arlvnr„i». 

necessary to implement the CCB process The advt,^ ""!!?' ' SSUCS and *«>* •§ 
ma,e a io„ g . ,e m commitment te^S ^SR^SS^L. 5 

b ) Co mmunity Diagnosis % 

Action Research: Action Research includes: 



u 

i. 



impact their issue. 0r couId be modified to j; 

o 

2. Neighborhood/Community Mapping: advocates identify u • , § 
boundaries of their neighborhoo^oVcommumtv Tne^ th? PhyS,Cal 
institutions, businesses aeencies nroaS,,/- y n ma P out the 
neighborhood/coniSuruS ^"izat.ons, etc. within their defined 

3. Identify, individual and community strengths- fl Hvn Mt a 

of community identifying skills, teredo* ^^l* * n asse * ™P" 
allies/supporters -,„ ° ' ex P ene nces, and potential 



Attachment III, Page 2 of 2 
4. Tobacco Indicators: advocates collect information through community 
opinion surveys, key leader interviews, potential policies and community 
opinions around potential policies, tobacco purchase surveys, tobacco 
advertising and promotion surveys, etc. 

Analyze findings: advocates analyze the information they have gathered and 
identify an Action to address an issue of concern. The Action should be: 
1) achievable, 2) have the potential for sustainability, and 3) compel a 
group/agency/organization to change the place they live for the well bein» of 
all. ° 



c) Developing an Action Plan : advocates create an action plan to achieve their 
Action. The action plan draws on the strengths and assets of community 
members. The action plan includes steps for achieving the action such as: 
identifying target agency/board/group to approach, mobilizing supporters, 
developing an educational packet, conducting media advocacy, and identifying 
potential barriers. The action plan also includes an evaluation component. 

d) Implementing the Action Plan : advocates implement the action plan. The action 
plan may include an outreach plan, media advocacy plan, developing a model 
policy, advocating for a policy, and making presentations. 

2) Fiscal sponsor services will also include support for media campaigns implemented 
by Intersection for the Arts/Youth Speaks, Booker T. Washington Community 
Services Center and Infusion-One in the amount of $25,000. Media costs will 
include development and placement of anti-tobacco ads in movie theaters, cable TV, 
radio and print; production of press kits. 

3) Additional fiscal sponsor support will be provided in the amount of $5,060 through 
promotional items, incentives, and training expenses such as attendance at tobacco 
related conferences, rental of training space, speaker honoraria. 



71 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Item 9 - File 00-1959 

Department: 

Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 

Description: 



Airport 

Ordinance appropriating $671,165,000 of San Francisco 
International Airport Second Series Revenue Bond 
proceeds to fund various capital improvement projects. 



$671,165,000 

San Francisco International Airport Second 
Revenue Bond (Airport Revenue Bonds) proceeds. 



Series 



Budget: 



On October 2, 2000, tbe Board of Supervisors authorized 
the issuance of $671,165,000 of San Francisco 
International Airport Second Series Revenue Bonds (File 
00-1191). The Airport Commission intends to use the 
proceeds of these Bonds to finance capital projects at the 
Airport. These capital projects are in addition to the 
Master Plan projects financed by Bonds previously 
approved by the Board of Supervisors. According to Ms. 
Lisa Harris of the Airport, the amount of $671,165,000 
comprises (a) $621,120,062 in project costs for 94 separate 
capital improvement projects, and (b) $50,044,938 in 
capitalized interest, debt service, and issuance costs. 

A summary budget is as follows: 



Project Categories 


Cost 


Master Plan, Phase B (7 projects) 


$305,108,920 


Airfield improvements (10 projects) 


58,253,251 


Environmental (10 projects) 


20,882;422 


Revenue maintenance and generation (6 projects) 


47,383,901 


Safety and security enhancements (26 projects) 


77,275,745 


Service improvements (31 projects) 


55,174,265 


Facilities integration (4 projects) 


57.041.558 


Subtotal: 


$621,120,062 


Capitalized interest, debt service, and issuance costs 


50.044.938 


TOTAL: 


$671,165,000 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

7? 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Ms. Harris states that total costs for the 94 projects are 
expected to be $779,468,000, which include (a) capital 
project costs of $621,120,062, (b) capitalized interest on 
the Airport Revenue Bonds in the amount of $93,248,000, 
(c) a debt service reserve of $55,032,000, and (d) debt 
issuance costs of $10,067,938. Sources of funding totaling 
$779,468,000 include the subject Airport Revenue Bonds 
($671,165,000), projected interest earnings on the Bond 
proceeds ($30,303,000), and proceeds from the sale of 
Airport commercial paper and variable rate demand notes 
to be repaid from operating revenues ($78,000,000). 

With regard to the $78,000,000 in Airport commercial 
paper and variable rate demand notes, Ms. Harris advises 
that the Airport expects to keep those commercial paper 
notes outstanding until the Airport is ready to repay them 
from operating revenues. Ms. Harris advises that the 
Airport does not expect to repay the $78,000,000 in 
commercial paper notes with long-term Airport revenue 
Bond proceeds. 

Attachment I, provided by the Airport, provides detailed 
information on each of the 94 individual projects within 
the above project categories which will be funded by the 
Airport Revenue Bonds. The worksheet contains the 
following information for each of the 94 projects: 

(a) Name of project 

(b) Project description 

(c) Estimated project cost 

(d) Percentage of total program cost 

(e) Project's start and completion dates 

(f) Budget details 

(g) Date of competitive bidding process, and the name of 
selected contractors for those projects where the 
competitive bidding process has already been 
completed 

(h) Projected annual revenue to be generated by the 
project upon completion. 

Thirty-five of the projects listed in Attachment I are 
highhghted and in bold text. Ms. Harris advises that 
these 35 projects are the projects for which the Airport 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

requires immediate appropriations approval because 
contractors have already been selected and design and/or 
construction work is already underway. Ms. Harris states 
that there have been no expenditures incurred against the 
subject $671,165,000. Ms. Harris states that all design 
and/or construction work currently underway is being 
funded from other previously appropriated sources. 

Comments: 1. Prior to approving the issuance of $671,165,000 in 

Airport Revenue Bonds (File 00-1191), the Board of 
Supervisors had approved issuance of $220,000,000 in 
Airport Revenue Bonds in June of 1997 (File 170-97-6) 
and $165,000,000 in March of 1999 (File 99-0206). These 
three Airport Second Series Revenue Bond issuances 
jointly amount to $1,056,165,000, to be used for Airport 
infrastructure projects which are additional to those near- 
term Master Plan projects already funded by a further 
$2,850,000,000 in Bonds approved by the Board of 
Supervisors for the Airport's Master Plan construction 
projects. 

2. The capital projects to be financed by the $671,165,000 
in Airport Revenue Bonds were reviewed and 
recommended by (a) the Airport Commission on 
September 19, 2000, and (b) the Capital Improvement 
Advisory Committee (CIAC) on August 29, 2000. 

3. The Airport is seeking appropriation approval for the 
full amount of $671,165,000. Attachment II, provided by 
Mr. John Martin, Airport Director, states that 
appropriation of the full amount would: 

• Allow the Airport to use proceeds from its existing 
commercial paper program 1 to fund projects' 
prehminary engineering and design, as well as 
construction and other costs, prior to issuance of the 



1 According to Ms. Harris, while the Airport has authorization to issue $400,000,000 in Commercial 
Paper, and has $350,000,000 currently issued, the Airport intends to refund some of that currently 
issued Commercial Paper in order to make Commercial Paper funding available for future runway 
expansion costs. Of the Commercial Paper kept aside for the subject capital improvement projects, 
Ms. Harris states that such Commercial Paper is likely to fund: (a) Boarding Area B construction 
costs ($66,358,920) and contingency costs ($5,000,000), (b) architecture and engineering design costs 
for all projects ($49,939,947), (c) code inspection services for all projects ($28,836,225), and (d) other 
miscellaneous costs ($557,950), for total Commercial Paper funding of $150,693,042. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



long-term Airport Revenue Bonds. Commercial paper 
rates have been consistently lower than long-term 
bond rates, according to Attachment III. 

• Provide the Airport with the flexibility to determine 
the schedule and sizing of its bond issuances in order 
to gain the lowest price. 

4. Ms. Harris argues that full appropriation authority 
without reserving any Bond funds would permit the 
Airport to: 

• Use commercial paper to fund architecture and 

engineering design services (typically 15 percent of 
total project costs) for any of the 94 projects listed in 
Attachment I, rather than for just those projects 
which have already received appropriation approval. 

• Expend Bond proceeds as soon as the Bonds have been 
issued, without separate Board of Supervisors 
approval for a release of reserves. 

The Budget Analyst notes, however, that if Bond funds 
are appropriated but reserved, the Airport would still be 
able to issue the Bonds. 

5. Of the $671,165,000 in Airport Revenue Bond 
proceeds, Ms. Harris states that the Airport has 
immediate need of $458,478,812 or approximately 68.3 
percent. The amount of $458,478,812 comprises: 

• $369,288,379 for the 35 projects for which the Airport 
has already selected a contractor and begun design 
and/or construction work. 

• $43,860,731 for capitalized interest, debt service, and 
issuance costs related to those 35 priority projects. 

o $37,774,752 for architecture and engineering design 
work related to the remaining 59 projects. This 
amount is 15 percent of the total cost of the remaining 
59 projects ($251,831,683). 

• $7,554,950 for code inspection services related to the 
remaining 59 projects. This amount is 3 percent of the 
total cost of the remaining 59 projects. 

Ms. Harris states that architecture and engineering 
design services, and code inspection services are provided 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



in-house by Airport project managers, architects, 
engineers, and environmental experts. 

6. The Board of Supervisors could appropriate either (a) 
the full amount of $671,165,000 for the entire schedule of 
94 projects, with no reservation of funding, or (b) the full 
amount of the $671,165,000, reserving all funding except 
for the likely design and/or construction costs of those 
projects which the Airport intends to begin immediately. 
Under the second scenario, the Airport would need to seek 
a release of reserves when the Airport is prepared to 
expend Bond funds for the remaining projects. 

7. During the preparation of this report, the Budget 
Analyst has experienced considerable difficulty in 
obtaining from the Airport (a) a consistent account of 
what the Airport's project priorities actually are, and (b) 
consistent project details in terms of the Airport's 
selection of contractors for specific projects. Therefore, 
the Budget Analyst recommends that the balance of the 
subject appropriation be placed on reserve until the 
Airport is able to provide sufficient budget information to 
justify release of the required reserves. 

8. Ms. Harris states that, at a minimum, each of the 94 
projects generates revenues equal to or larger than the 
debt service payment charged through airlines rates and 
charges. Under the Airport's Lease and Use Agreement 
with the airlines, the annual debt service cost associated 
with each project is guaranteed to be recoverable from 
airline terminal rentals and landing fees. However, 
according to Ms. Harris, where individual projects 
generate revenue for specific recipients (for example, 
parking garages or the rental car center), then another 
methodology, separate from the Lease and Use 
Agreement, is used to assess the revenues recoverable 
from those projects. For example, in the case of a parking 
garage, the potential parking fee revenue is evaluated to 
determine the financial capacity of such revenue to meet 
debt service requirements for that portion of Bond 
proceeds required to fund such a parking garage project. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Recommendations: 1. Approve the proposed appropriation ordinance. 

2. Reserve $212,686,188 of the total appropriation 
($671,165,000 less $458,478,812, as discussed in 
Comment No. 5 above), for release in installments when 
the Airport is ready to commence design and construction 
of each of the remaining 59 capital improvement projects. 






BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



tinul»J)i P>l-»fO'.l 


J0I1DJIU0J pillll>S V 


• •P'B i»l>!l" l "">J /" ""a 




!, 10 J 




rno»uo/;jjij/v 




J'WO 




t»3t/u>s 




uoiwdiuj >/>oj 




raj/.upy i/S/Mo 




iauiawHun 




f unimiyxiy 


WOJ%01J 








V3uu.m„l 






Q 


pj//oj|i«o 




,j:,-0 ■ 


>5 






;'" 


.(dujSuiiuoj 




U0II3IIJ11U0J i 




liijiuilintij 


ima P"3 »'t°ij 


nvq ijbis &i[oij 


K'JI'l'X/tff 


;i°j li'foJj pnnwiisz . 






a- 








'q 












«, 







s -S <J 



•I E 

Mil 



♦ JS'J 



-S-i S e« 






-2 
il.3 



f'Jf 



15 



111 



E 3 I 



|S 2 = < 



I-fi 






I III" 



1 ■ 



I S- 

ill 

i a S 



Page 1 o f 16 



ill 

1 1 J -5 g 

hiif 

IJl II 

S. S 2 2 5 

ilii! 



esl 



■ . :■ ■■' ' - - : ; 


■ S3T1U3A7-}[ p9l33f0JJ -■' 


JO0VJJUOJ p3J3»l?S 7 " 


1, + ptff 2AWi»diUOJ fa 31BQ 




sisoj.'j,! 




jrrtwi/D/;5J!7>v 




jjr ; , . 




iSi/Araj 




uomodmi spoo 




kdjajis «2<.n>a 




' StIU33UlSUJ " 




■ 7 3jni33iiiJ3jy 


. ; -.■ 


■ uipjSojj'/-- 






5 


33uvjnnit, 


Q 


' .. p3l,OJl-JOJ ■ 


t V.*: 


. VJ1/X0 ■■ 


•S 3 






e> 






auoSuiiuOQ * 




. uoil3iu'i:uoo_ 




.»,,,, ; 


>wa puzfiirfcjji: 


31V Q ■ IJOJflJjfoJJ 


l!t>3 )vioj_fa %■ ■ 'j 


jjoj )D3[ojj piiiwiHx . 




■• If i ' .& 


3 ■ 




Q 


'■>■ '■ ,X '. 






, 1 


' '■' i-' 



5 S I ■" & 

s g 1 I a 



K S 8 2,3 

S" g ' B •= 

■a b -o s -o 

(2 6 S 8 3 



■a i a l 



§£e 



1«: 



- " .1 "8 

1 HI 

.11 5 "5 

EstS 

|5« li 






fig 

ill 
in 

ill 




Page 2 of 16 



1-1 



If! 

6 e = 

Jill 






- » 



ft £ 

l] 




£ g, g.jj'g 



stnvtOH p»»(ojj 


* 


s 


3 


a 


• •PIS «JI!»'»»j/» "»cr 


z 




i t\ 1 




■■ - .• 

4? ' 

05 


• utoj 




J 


J 


| 


uojioydtuf »poj 


R 


| 


1 


| 




1 


| 


1* 


j 


■ : p»noj]uoj 

JJUMQ • ; 










.binty/vo^ 




o* 


1 


3 


l/o./jny/luo^ 


- 


s 


i 


M> 


,i,iwi,'nb3 ' 








O* 


31VQ pUJ lljfcjj-'. 


g 


a 


1 

a 




>;oq uv 1S lJ> '.'.„' 


| 


o 


t 




IIOJIVIOJ,/! «. 


o 


s 


2 


* 


jroj mfcjj pittwiita 


1 




I 


s 


'• -. ;•'■."' 


[if* 

fill 

lllf 

illll 

111 -ii 

.= -s a .? I 
£ g a J 'c 


! ° = c ■ 
: ?= 1-g 

^ 5 ■= § • 

c u o e -c 
1 g &- E 

I j j ! j 

■s ~ i ° s 

ill!!, 

h S."S. S B s 


~ ■ g 

I'-Jrl 
= §jj 

! • = 

5 o c < 

all J 

a. x ■ c 


c 
1 
j 




£ 




So 

5 o. 
2 c" 

li 


< | s 

Iff 

M a h 







Page 3 of 16 



j»Boj«y pamfojj 


jojjoJiuoj paij»j3s y . 


**Ptff,' ,t !ill 3 'f u 'Ojfo 3 >°Q 




'. sisoj .,." 




j«Milir//ww 




-»<f»0 ' 




rajM-/J$* - 




uofisodsttj opo'} 




&J1AJ3S u2>&Q 




■ fiuunSuj 




y unvoHijjjy 


. mortojj 






5 


33UVJIMV/ 


Q 


lajiauu'oQr-y 




joumo 


<5 








amSuiiti'o-y 




_ uotuiumioj 




:-* 


iwa p"3 !"(>'*4' '■ ■■ 


j;0(/ 11D1S U'foJJ 


«0J Wife % 


jsd-) loifojj pjwwusg • 




■ '.X .1 '"' '. 










; C) 


, v, .. , 






1 "• 





II j J 

lllll 

6_3u o (5 



a 1 1 

a u -2 
III 



|«1 

• 1 eH 



3 J! ! 
Mi 

x a cc 



o ■* S c 2 
* I -a s I 

-a j c o e 

ll.lfl 
lllll 

1 ill S i 

!ii til 

j^-o g S •= S 
° » o = K ° 
°- c ' B £ « 
I "1 ill 



Si 



If 

ill 



e s 
| J 






III 
ill 



i 

if 



Page 4 of 16 



HI 

1 -3 I 

ilt<L 

!: * ; | 

< a = g 

I S" i 

° 3 = S. 

s * s -o 

3..J t, « 
I ? -o 5 

Ifffl 

Hi! 



JIH 



° s 

?£.§£ 



4 

ill.? 

111 






ill 



>H l»P>f°'<l 



J0I30JIU4J pilD»l>S y r 

„PIB i*)l)l)iiwo3 Jo >wa 



IrlOJI/l'//»JI7/V 









UlOjgOJJ 



flog udis VJfo'J 



isoj toifajj psiowtisj- 



r I i c I 



5 Sj e 

Itli 

: = •: = 

c - t S 



ess. 



J -5 



-■3? 
i £ -3 



±.5 = S =' 

2 = 2 = = 

- 7 " - 3 | 



I Sf 



Attachment I 
Page 5 of 16 



; «. 



sinui^u piiDjfcjj 


joudjiuoj philips 7 '■'-- 


**P!ff Miipo'uiojfo 310(2 




- - " 








nKwrny/Mir/y. 




: -"'/jo :. 




• " r»//L»s ■_ 




uonDzdsuf ipoj 




■mj<ui~S »*ra(7 




' SufJiwSu&j: 




y fjnipnipjy 


, . 


'- . '■ wtufojj. 








- »3inunml 






<a •:-•-; 


r?ii"iu<>3 


^ ■■'^i r »- 


Mtufo: - 


•S 1 ■ 








C5 






fcitoSuuuoj 




uoiiarujslioj 




im'uttwbj 7 * 


. 3ioo -'puj toxoid y(- 


-■anaums P'[°'d S 


ISO J fumx fa % - 


isoj mfojj punuimj- 


--^C" yV 




-S- 










. C( 

















3 5" S S 



15.3 El b 8 



£3.3, 



s s 5-.E 



i ! 



is s 

I = S 

III 

1 ffS 



I & rf I * 
J 1 1 1 ! 

altli 



.& g- = §■ 



"s c£ ° ~ 
Jj|l 

U < o O 



= 5 U S os .2 



11 = 



If 

£•< 



11 E' 



i i 



i 5 E E 

111! 



Page 6 of 16 



I 



■1 l» 
l-lfl 

* ? f I 

a £ ? 5 



5 s:| 

B a =.(- 



ijnuiAjy pjijjfojj 


jcudjiuoj p>u>i>s y 


=5 


utoq 

tnoiiioiintjrr 


uo/ijjdiu] »p<>2 




' tiuv/niul 

■l"OJ 
■ J1UMQ 


foujSitiiuoj 


. uoiiwitfoj ■ 


:;,h 3 


ilea P"3 l"f"J 


jujwismfwj. 


HOJ ivtej, /ok 


isoj n'faJJ pyjouqus 









mi 

ill 1 
Hi* 

s J I V 



•a c 

iffl 

III! 



2 C .= 
III 



= i I - £ 

lilli 
• fill 

f < ° E 5 

g-J ft s. 

3 I I ^ S 

5 I * E I 
1 1 P I I 

g J I "* ' 



§ I: 



J 5 



112 

Is< 






E = 
* 1 



If 
ill 

ifl] 



X a 



e s a 



j!:s 



il 



">- l-oi-iuiicu L J. 

^age / ot 16 



1 ? - 



s 2-5 1 






! e 



ill 



III I 

liet 



J0I3VJ1U0J p3)311>S 7. 



snoDuoipiny/ 






.Suuosu,Su 3 
3> ijmmnuy 






IIS (I WIS l0if0JJ . 



isoj wfojj piicaiKz^ 






i p I § i 

|| »s I 
1 1 1 1 1 

III II 

8 1 1 J ^ 

mil 

; ? ! ! S 



11 



II 
ill 



£1 



hi] 

s I ll 

Ifli 

5 — -§"1 

i 1 s i 

I If* 

- E - "o 

lli i * 
IISlJ 



£ 8 8g 

s.S 5 Pi 

g < c § . 



s 

II 

11. 



= 2 * 

I i" 2 

lit 



gill 



il 



Page 8 of 16 



6 ■» ? 
g I J 



If! 



ifli 

2-g-i i 



t s.; 



III 



sis 



fii 



lli 
lit 



85 



Page 9 of 16 



e -5* 







3 


i 


§ 


1 


§ 


1 


8 














| 








Jy psiiifoij 










"• 


= 








i.. 


"° V 


iji 






■a 


JO13DJIU0J p>IO>l»S V 

• tPia t»!HI" lm °D /« "'O 


z 


1 1 1 g o 1 

J «* ill 


i M 


] a J 

Ml 




< 


1 
Q 








u 




o - 










H'OJ 


















rnotuDipjnrf 


















J3\f)0 


















& 








1 


1 






\ «j/ajjj . 


- 








3 


| 






uoiijjdrtt/ *poj 


















5 








r~ 


1 


R 




nifiuis uSina 


-" 








3 


8 


g 




;. SuunuiSuj ■ 












' 


w 




j> uwmitjxjy 
















. mojSojJ ■■ 
















^ 


. „uujntu[; 
















Q 


■ F i n on<io3 . 




■ 














: "" M o 
















£ 




































63 


XjuiSu/iuoj . 




3 




- 












° 








§ 


§ 


5 '" 
































8 


































3 






■ uoiiltultuoj 
























B 


















o 
































g* 


s 


I" 










;:'io»'':<»J. 


















, 


8 






























JJCQ 


pug ujfojj _. :■ . 


2 


















■ 


* 


- 


° 


* 


6 








a 








f 

z 




8 


•»;»<7 


ubis n»fojj •-. 


I 

< 


* 


1 


1 


f 
o 






;S 


^ 


n 


* 




I 


* 


vo- 


i>»'l/'% . 


s 


3 


; 


s 


2 


B 








° 


■ 


■ 


° 


° 


° 


" 










8 








| 












o 


i 






















*o" 




o" 






| 




































>t°J w 


fOlJ pJWUIJSJ . 














' 


3- 

a! 


i 

1 

< 

1 

i 

1 

f j 

|f 


o "J i J 
"5 - S" - 

€ J! £ u 

* ■• g- * a 

= = s s 

m 

if JH 

III | s 


liil 
jiij 

sl|l 
•8 o| 

J o £g 

3 J! X 

i -o S 1 


II 

ill 
1 if 

ii i 

5 Q _C 

111 

1*1 

g S s 

hi 


u 

< 
> 

jl 

= 1 

£ t 

5 S 

II 

^ < 

If 

* ? 

|s| 

S.E.! 


i I j 
Illi 
II 21 
iff! i 

llil! 
ills! 

8 1 ? < | 
flfjl 


3 3 £ w 

= 3 ° « 

1 1 1 g 

j < | 5 
























•a 

ill! 


> It 

to 

5 A S 


„ 5 „ 
III 

Ills 

*. j 5 J 


i 

BE 


S 

1 1 ? j 

s e 1 s 

nil 


| 

Is 


ifii 



srnumox paioofejj . 


I 


s 


~ 


5 


- 


s 


jonviiuoj pwi'S y -• 


%. E E £ 

— = 2? b. 
u =■ g 


1 1 1 <B | 


E 


5 

o 








S1S0J 

snojiioipjsjw 
jo 1,10 












s 


\ roii/uis 
uoiuodsiij »po3 












1 


mi.\As oSisorj 
2uuooui$u 3 






3' 






5 


. .. wvjSojj . 

OOUVJnruj 

■ po/IOJiJoj 

JltlMO 












a 


ibuoSwiupp 




1 








s" 


uoiionjisuoj 


1 




R 


1 


a 


2 


luowdlithj ■ 




| 








- 


._.-:.' - .'»/off p "3 ujfojj 






O 

Q 








■ nvav's wf<»j 


i " 


9 


| 


1 


1 




. '; tsoj into j, fo % 


| _. 


i 


1 


5? 


| 


^ 


. I'°J mfOJJ PD1DU1IH3 


s _; 5 -.*. 


1 


R 


o" 


o\ 


s 


Project Description 


3 6 
2 1 

? - "3 


The new fircboat should be capable of maneuvering in the 
shallow tidal Hats off the approach end of Runways 
28R/28L It also should have a pump and watcr-dclugc 
system. This project replaces Fircboat Nutley, which was 
purchased in 1988. 


Si 

?& 
1 d 
gf 
4a 

lit 

ill 

IH 


T-3000 dual agents, roof and bumper lurrcl pump and 
drive with undercarriage chat can be operated in the cab 
This project replaces the Mobile 41 Aircraft Rescue 
Firefighiing (ARf F) vehicle. 


9 

S 

o 

1 

1 
1 

P - 

a =5 
&2 

eg 


f 

a 

| 

1 




"3 2 aV 

Ms 

t 8 -o 
u J = 


| 


if 

"lis 

z'SeS Si 


6 < 


III 
if Jj 





Attachment I 
Page 10 of 16 



t»nu>A»y fuujfajj 


JO/JDJJUOJ p»t33l»S V 


• fPfg »Aftfl*dutQjf0 HD(J 


1 




moo 
snnuDiiDociyi 
! : Jt'llp - 






,'■£,'„ 






uoiiDjdtu/ 3po3 






H0l<u*S "*.'«(7 






1UU31IIISU 3 






f> unixiipjy 


, WDjtOJJ- 






"""; 












Cl 




r'uajtuoj 


5 




Jll.MQ 
















■ ,.,,,103 






uoiwwtup 






lu>wd : nh 3 : 




.>jvapH3»>f°jj<:- 




31lt(] UDIS IJjftJJ 








)!OJ id/ox fo ; 










] 


°3 1-<>:.*'J F>lB<ui>!3 


'• 














.a. „ .-.-.T: 












" 3 




c; 



































SI 



igi 



1*11 

« g a. 3 <2 

11111 

ntn 

r 6 -S ? 

ill 



if 






HI 



I * 



si 

S D 



rs g 
HI 



111 



it*" 
SJiflS 



ill 

6 -s c 

c *- "5 



ill 

.1!. 



Page 11 ot 16 



] I 

5 "8? 
ll| 

jl| 

ill 

hi 

f||| 

II I| 

- ^ .2 t 

18 5 k* I 

H ^5 E E 



VI 



So 

^ c 

! 

I! 



a 



nuiAix pwsfojj 



JoaDJluaj pupils 1 






SjuBjnmr. 



2 If'ii •a 



o V .3 r? 



c < -? 



•s 5 

J g 

B "3 



I i 



£"3-3 



Sit 

elf 



a" S | 
i|j 

HI 

s'J £ 

"5.3 3 

If II 

"a ? E £ 

Sill 



Page Yl ot 16 



ill! 
lilt! 

= I- -s - 
3 -S - fr ■§ 

I § "3 » ' 
1 J 1 s S 



3 i all 

lliii 

gill I 



III 



.5 J 

ii 



I! 



: >£ > 



Si s 

s S ? s i 



1*5 &I 






"3 >_ 



II 



§ ■§-■§ 

£ 3 s 



5 | 

■ a 



89 















nLLdLiiiLeni. X 


6 




Pa 


ie J.'3 


Qt I 






| 


§ 


§ 


-: 


g 


s 


















-*. 
































1 

5 

r 


ttnuMiy puDifoij 


*" 


~ 




5 


a 




■ 










a.' 










i 










jouoJiuaj ptt3)i»s f 


« 5 

UJ < 

< 


< 


< 


8 

1 


r- O - 

e bi = 

z < 2 


| 2 £ 


^ o - 

5 b! 5 . 
- < i 
























































■ ■ 


H'OO 












°- 












»nojiity/».>n/y 
























■"VO 
















































8 


§ 


8 


1 


o 


S 


§ 
































n»tj>s ■ 


S 


° 


** 


•* 


" 


" 


" 










UOlllldlUl 3)IOJ 
































■ 




"S 
















■ 










































mj/.upj uJ/rarj 


■ 


8 


jj 


° 


g 


5 


• 










»upMI/lJi#S 


" 


" 




_ 
















. y Jjnim/tpjy 






















. UlDJtOJJ 








Y~ 






































2 
























Q 


i /^//OJ/UOJ 






















■^ 


jju.« u 












































=5 


Xj„,Sv„i.oj 






8 


£■ 




z. 


" 
















I 


3 






















i 


8 












































| 
















S 


S 


9 


SJ 


n 


; 










UOJUIUI1IIOJ 
























iraur/iisfts; 






















■ 




































_ 
















B 


9 














>i°a p"3 i»[°<j 


g 


i 


£ 




j 


f 


i 













^ 


a 


< 


"* 


S 


= 








. aitiQ hvis iJjfojj 


< 


Q 


g 


| 


a 


s 


% 










f 


* 


| 


* 




;• 








liOJ JVIOJ, /o % ■ 


s 


^ 








g 


5 










° 


— 


° 


° 


° 


° 


° 












































































































































no J uifoij swoiij/lj 
























5 


This project will provide for the construction of two new 
mechanical rooms on the roofof the North Terminal and 
decommission the two existing mechanical rooms at the 
basement of North Terminal Additionally, this project 
will retrofit the remaining mechanical rooms. 


I "S.1 


§_ 


> -o 


. . 


j 






1 


..'<.:- 

&. 

i 


The signage in the North Terminal will be upgraded lo 
meet current ADA codes and improve way-finding for 
public. All airline gates will be converted to match the 
alpha-numeric numbering consistent with B/A-'A" and 
"G" gate signage used in the Master Plan. 


This project will widen West Field Road (formerly kno 
as R-6) Project involves excavation, cold planing, 
pavement removal, subgrade preparation, construction < 
pavement overlay, purchase of electroliers and inslallat 
of roadway signage and pavement 


The purpose of this contract is to have a conlractor on 
board for as-needed construction, remodel and rcnovoii 
of existing facilities. Work shall include one or more o 
the following: demolition, new walls, ceiling, flooring, 
painting and related electrical systems. 


A new street light system for pedestrian and vehlcul 
safely will need lo be Installed along West Field Roi 
(formerly known as R-6) as will as a new eleelrleal 
power upgrade lo an existing load center lo supply 
these new street lights. 


1 i -S ?-= 

iliTl 

T i -S f 1 


Z £ 
1 1 

^ - 

I i 

I I 

ill 

S.JS ? 

Ill 






° §■ 






e 






_, 


u < 


M 






1! 




•a u 

ti i 

E S 6 


1 J- "J 
S .2 3 C 


J 3 
2 1 


■s - 1 




£ «- 


1 

I ■ i 

3 u at 






4 £ 


■ 




'-515E 
■§■§ 8 1 § 


II 


111 

fli 

< o o 


Hi 


1 ^ 







Page 14 of 16 



II 



1! 

B •5' 



- " .- . 


vi 





o. 





CO 


^ 




























































nnuMg piwfajj - ;-, 








s 












„ 


^ 


-Q 


= 


^ 


^ 






pnjiuiuajpiatfisjr 


■ 


s 


1 


III 


a 


■ 




O Si 

u i: 


*\P!S "twlMtwojfo una 


E 


E 


1 


S H 1 


g 


| 


S < 5 " 


< — 




O 


o 


O 


U 


o 


o 






si'°0 3 • 




















inoiuDUijnw 




















J'Hip'r 


































































































mitjiS 








3 






8 






uojtndmj ipoj 














































































njt<U3S "Siaa 






£ 


g 












j 3m-i33ui2u 3 .- 








■* 






M 






y 3jn\i3,] H -'Y 


















uvrtcjj 


















| 


/Miiiumy/. 
















. 


5 


'r?ll° J i"'°D. ■ 


















^ ■ 


J3UMQ 


















•£> 






































5 . 


iburtijrJp 




S 










S 






























S 


o 


K 


K 


2 














































lioiisiuirudj, 










































° 


§ 
















' 


3 


g" 
















g*£; 




































' ■ una pu 3 n'f°-ij ■ 








o 






Q 




nvq ums wfo'j , 


o 




5 


s 


o 




| 






















- 








to 






s 






s? 




£ 


^ 


^ 


^ 


^ 




pojimoxfo « •- 


g 


s 


s 


£; 


3 


3 


g j. ; ' r - 




, "V ' .- 


° 


° 


° 


■ 






° 
















































































































Itojpvfejj p3)Diin)sz[-'\ 








10 














































S 




J 1 

.11 s 

< o o 




t 

V. s 
1 3 

l| 


1 
E 

u 


c 

s - 




^5. 


■s 
& 

1 


1 

B 
J 


til 

s : « 

•g | 1 


fill? 

2 - £"•= 8 


° 1 
1 S 

S 6 

11 

'S. S 


| 

| 
•s 


i.| 

3 E 

- I 

J | 1 




i 




| 


3. 
.8 


JBl 




III 


* 

a 


■o c B 

In 






1 


E 
1 


o * o 

ill 


(2 S 5 i a . 




























3 2 

ill 


B 

Si 


is 

u e 
3 ° 

1 §" 

of n 


ail 


Is 1 1 


111 
III 


5*1 

111 








.• 


_ 





^ 


^ 
































S3nujA»y pipafojj 








5 


. Fir ;■ 






■B 




jojdvjiuoj p»i39i*s y 


S 


5 


m 




• •/Vff nyiwlutojfo ijDfX 


1 


■Z 


o 



















S1SOJ . 








51 




moiuofponyi 








s" 




J'i/10 ; 




































°. 


"! 




s 




rajuJay .'.' 


s 


■* 




s 




uouoodsui ipoj 








a 






































miHas " S !™CI 


s" 


™* 




r-3 




Suunuiiuz :. 








5 




y ijniosiitjijy 










,. wojSojj ' 








g 
















mmjnmii 






















Q •' 


'-l'?ll aj »">J"' J .. 








** 




jDUMolrr 










|> " 




































«J 


itiihSuiiueo 


° 






a 










































































UOIIDIIJISIIOJ 








5 




' 








** 























° 












a 




„ 


















>wa p?3 p'fojj 


Q 


Q 








„ 








JW(j vvis »jfojj 


| 


| 


o 






a 




" 






55 


a 


£5 


^ 


:sojlaioj,fo % 


s 


2 


5 


s 




° 


° 


° 


M 




s 


g 


° 


„ 


















o* 




■ 


z 


;£ 


CO 


£ 


ISO J U'foJj pwuiiisz ■ 








£ 






o 


8 




















•a 








■s a 


a 






1 


ill 


t 








i 






S g 


| 




<5 


11 
11 


m 


00 

8 

■a 


s 


£ 


Hi 

B 1 I 


ill 

K" 1 
Ill 


ll 

So 

'5"S 

EL j 

•5 


I 
} 

.8 
1 

s 




a 8 


"3 

Si 

S3 | 

51 


■ f 1 








Iii! 


■3 P c u 

8 5 8 3 

13 U < O 





Attachment I 
Page 15 of 16 







• 


jepcjiuoj p*vii*s y 


»./Vff HLlltlidmtjJt ilia 




S1IOJ 




SnO}UDH13!l)1 




»'l>0 




»>i/U»; 




U0tl33dttt[ BpOJ 




allots "»;"0 




3uui}ui3u3 


Q 


, y MiM»;/yup 


p>UCU,uo3 




■ J3UMQ . 


■5 










. uoujiuicuoj 








liuwdinhj 




. 


«"(7 T"3I"' S '<! 


Jlt/Q -IJV1S iJlfOJJ 


H°J I'l'l /" S 


jjo;) WJ/OJ,/ pj;ru<;;sj 


• 




1 


. 






• 



a 


- 


S 


2 


3 


| 


S. a 3 
i a t 


S. B S 
■SEC 

< i a. 


> 1 1 E S I 

2< I : Js 


? R f e 8 4 

2 j Z S b> = 














** 


3 












3 




3 


a 




8 


§ 












s 












I' 


3 


1 


3 


5 


§ 


O 












s" 


? 


| 










! ' s : ' 


§ 


! 


t 






1 


§ 


5 


2 


i 


* 

8 


a 


B 


I 


3 


^ 


s 


i - 

- 1 - - 
fa 
s * 

= 1 " 

P s. 


i! 

3 1- 
> " = 

^ j= "> 
j (! 

c ! 3 
1.- 1 
II! 

£11 


* 

il 

° o 2 

II! 

S.Sv 
£j 1 

lis 

t i = 

1 1 II 

P 5 I 


1 ill 

iijij 

1 if || 

5 -• £ Si •= 

fills 


3 

o 

K 

| i 

J 
1 


1 Ml I 


E 

Witi 

■T s 3 J S 


.ill 

1 1 i 1 i 

u £ H c o? 


fc J = 

£ .£ h > 





Attachment I 
Page 16 of 16 



(THU)i2. 7' 00 3:53/2T. 3:43/NO. 



ftctacnment 11 

Page 1 of 2 "" 



San Francisco International Airport 



P.O. Box 8097 

San Francisco, CA 94128 

Tel 630.821.5000 

Fax 650.821.5005 

wvAV.flysfb.com 



December 8, 2000 



MRPOBT 
COMMISSION 

City and county 
OP SAN FRANCISCO 

WILLIE L BROWN. JR. 
MAYOX 

HENRY E. BERMAN 
PRtSlOtHT 

LARRY MAZZOLA 
V/Cf fOlUPlNT 

MICHAtl S.SYHUNSKY 

LINOA S.CRAYTON 



JOHN I.MARTIN 
AWPOItT OIHICfOH 



Mr. Harvey Rose 

Budget Analyst Office 

City Hall 

1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244 

Sail Francisco, CA 94102 

Dear Mr. Rose: 

I am writing to provide additional information concerning the full appropriation 
authority for the Airport Revenues Bonds in the amount of approximately 
$671.1 million. 

The San Francisco Airport Co mmi ssion seeks the full appropriation authority for a 
number of reasons. Appropriation of the full amount will allow the Airport to use 
proceeds from its existing commercial paper program to fund preliminary 
engineering and design as well as construction and other costs with respect to these 
projects pending the issuance of the long-term revenue bonds. Given that the rates 
for commercial paper have been consistently lower than the long-term bond rates, 
this allows the Airport to minimize costs associated with its capital program. 
Currently the average true interest cost (TIC) for the Airport's existing debt is 
approximately 5.63%, whereas the average TIC for the Airport's commercial paper 
is approximately 3.8%. 

Further, the full authority provides the Airport flexibility in deterrm'ning the 
schedule and sizing of the bonds to yield the lowest possible price. Essentially, the 
full amount of the appropriation will allow the Airport to quickly respond to the 
market and size the bonds accordingly, thereby minimizing the cost associated with 
its capital program. Based on discussions with our financial advisors it is possible 
thai future Federal Reserve actions and other market events could dictate interest 
rates at levels that would warrant a larger bond sizing. 



94 



f\c cacnment 1 1 

FROM SFIA ADMIN (650) 821-5005 (THU) 12. 7' 00 3:53/ST. 8:43/NO. Page 2 of 2 

Mr. Harvey Rose 
December 8, 2000 
Page 2 



In summary, the Airport requires flexibility in its bond siring in order to achieve the 
lowest capital costs possible. Therefore, it is my recommendation that the Board of 
Supervisors appropriate the full amount of the Airport's capital plan of $671.1 
million. 



yours, 




John~L\ Martin 
Airport Director 



cc; Marcus Perro 
Ed Harrington 
Susan Leal 
Moniquc Moyer 



95 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Item 10 - File 00-1603 

Note: This item was continued by the Finance and Labor Committee meeting 

of November 15, 2000. 



Department: 
Item: 



Contract Term: 



Airport 

Ordinance authorizing the Airport Commission to approve 
the continuation of a contract with the ShuttlePort/DAJA 
SFO Joint Venture to operate the Airport Curbside 
Management Program for up to four additional one year 

options commencing November 15, 2000. 

The first year extension option would extend the subject 
contract with the ShuttlePort/DAJA 1 SFO Joint Venture 
from November 15, 2000 to November 14, 2001 (12 
months). If the three additional one year extension 
options are approved by the Airport Commission in the 
future, the subject contract would be extended to 
November 14, 2004. The original contract did not require 
Board of Supervisors approval. However, approval of this 
one year extension option increases the total contract cost 
over subject contract's first two years to more than 
$10,000,000, which requires Board of Supervisors 
approval under the Charter. Approval of the future three 
one year extension options would not be subject to further 
Board of Supervisors approval under the subject 
ordinance. 



Amount: 



Projected to be $6,872,885, and not to exceed $6,875,000, 
for the November 15, 2000 to November 14, 2001 (Year 2) 
period. $6,872,885 is an approximately 16.7 percent 
increase over the $5,889,100 contract amount budgeted 
for the previous 12 month November 15, 1999 to 
November 14, 2000 (Year 1) contractual period. 

The budget for the Year 2 period, compared to the budget 
for the Year 1 period, is shown on the following page. 



1 DAJA, Inc. is a registered MBE/WBE firm. While ShuttlePort and DAJA, Inc. submitted then- 
proposal as a joint venture, with DAJA, Inc. as a 40 percent joint venture partner, the Human Rights 
Commission (HRC) denied their request for a 7.5 percent rating discount on the basis that DAJA, 
Inc. "has not demonstrated the expertise nor identified its portion of work for the airport operations 
and ground transportation management" contract and that DAJA, Inc. had failed to meet the joint 
venture requirements of the Chapter 12D Minority/Women/Local Business Ordinance. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 





Year One 


Year Two 


Increase / 


Percent 


Project Cost Summary 


Budget 


Budeet 


(Decrease) 


Increase 


Project Team Staff Labor 


$343,080 


$371,830 


$28,750 


8.4 % 


Project Team Staff Labor Benefits 


76,334 


81,610 


5,276 


6.9% 


Operations Staff Labor 


2,548,142 


3,079,127 


530,985 


20.8 % 


Operations Staff Benefits 


711,074 


1,037,966 


326,892 


46.0% 


SuperShuttle Subcontracts 


465,000 


478,950 


13,950 


3.0 % 


Lorrie's Travel and Tours Subcontract'" 


385,000 


396,550 


11,550 


3.0 % 


Annual Support Services (2) 


450,030 


525,209 


75,179 


16.7% 


Equipment Purchase 


58,100 


7,578 


(50,522) 


(87.0 %) 


Scheduled Annual Operating Costs 


358.659 


317.914 


(40.745) 


(11.4%) 


Total Operating Cost 


5,395,419 


6,296,734 


901,315 


16.7 % 


Fee< 3 > 


493.681 


576.151 


82.470 


16.7% 


TOTAL CONTRACT COST 


$5,889,100 


$6,872,885 


$983,785 


16.7 % 



Notes: 



<" Subcontracts: The ShuttlePort/DAJA SFO Joint Venture has subcontracted with 
SuperShuttle and Lorrie's Travel and Tours to operate the dispatching of door-to-door vans from 
designated "Blue Zones" (dispatching for two door-to-door van operators is managed by 
SuperShuttle from these zones) and "Red Zones" (dispatching for three door-to-door van 
operators is managed by Lorrie's Travel and Tours from these zones). The dispatching for the 
remaining nine door-to-door van operators out of the 'Yellow Zones" is managed by the 
ShuttlePort/DAJA SFO Joint Venture. 

(2) Annual Support Services: These comprise fees and costs for ShuttlePort/DAJA SFO Joint 
Venture controller services, external auditors, legal advisors, occupational safety and health 
services, human resources services, environmental services, information services, operational 
support services, risk management, labor relations, and logistics and engineering support 
services. In Years One and Two, these were calculated at approximately 8.3 percent of the total 
operating cost , and represent approximately 7.6 percent of the total contract cost . 

< 3 > Fee: Under the terms of the subject contract, the profit margin for the ShuttlePort/DAJA SFO 
Joint Venture is calculated at approximately 9.1 percent of the total operating cost in Years One 
and Two, and represents approximately 8.4 percent of the total contract cost . 

According to Mr. Dan Wong of the Airport, although the 
Year Two budget is projected to be $6,872,885, only 
$5,888,000 in ground transportation operator fee revenue 
(which is equivalent to the approximate budgeted funding 
for Year One of the contract) would need to be allocated to 
the subject Year Two contract. According to Mr. Wong, 
this is because the phased implementation of the Airport 
Curbside Management Program during Year One (see 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

"Description" below) is projected to result in 
approximately $1,939,100 of under-expenditure against 
the Year One budget which had been determined on the 
basis of ShuttlePort/DAJA SFO Joint Venture provision of 
full program services from Day One of the contract. The 
unexpended funds can be carried forward to fund the 
balance of the projected Year Two budget of $6,872,885. 

The Budget Analyst notes that the Program's projected 
Year One under-expenditure of $1,939,100 reflects the 
total anticipated Year One expenditure of $3,950,000 
(subject to processing of the final invoice for the year). 
The Year Two budget of $6,872,885 would therefore 
represent an approximately 74 percent increase over Year 
One projected expenditures. This is significantly greater 
than the 16.7 percent increase shown in the Table above. 
According to Mr. Wong, the balance of the increase (a 
projected $1,939,100) is the result of the expenditure 
difference between the phased implementation of services 
in Year One and the provision of the full range of services 
for the entire Year Two period. Mr. Martin also notes 
that some of the projected expenditure increase is due to 
added services required in conjunction with the opening of 
the new International Terminal. 

Source of Funds: Airport revenues generated by ground, transportation 

operators which pay fees to operate on Airport premises. 
Attachment I, provided by Mr. Wong, identifies the 
sources of the fees which will be paid to the Airport by 
ground transportation operators between November 15, 
2000, and November 14, 2001 and used to fund the 
Airport Curbside Management Program. 

According to Mr. Martin, the trip fees paid by ground 
transportation operators at the Airport are computed 
using a cost recovery approach which charges the users of 
Airport services and facilities for their fair share of 
Airport capital improvement, operations, and 
maintenance costs. In the case of ground transportation 
permit-holders, si'ch services include the Airport 
Curbside Management Program. 

The following table shows the trip fees in effect in 1999, 
prior to implementation of the Airport Curbside 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Management Program, and in 2000 after the Program 
had been implemented. Between those dates, the trip fees 
for ground transportation operators not covered by the 
Airport Curbside Management Program increased from 
$1.45 to $1.65 per trip, a $0.20 or approximately 13.8 
percent increase. Even without the Airport Curbside 
Management Program, the trip fees for the following four 
categories of ground transportation operators would have 
increased by 13.8 percent. Therefore, the last column 
shows the true impact per trip fee of cost recovery for the 
Airport Curbside Management Program. 



Ground 








Transportation 








Category 


1999 


2000 


Difference 


Door-to-door vans 2 


$1.45 


$3.25 


$1.80 


Taxis 


2.50 


3.25 


0.75 


Scheduled buses 


1.45 


2.75 


1.30 


Limousines 


1.45 


2.75 


1.30 



Increase due to Airport 

Curbside Management 

Program 

$1.60 
0.41 
1.10 
1.10 



Mr. Martin states that the total trip fees assessed by the 
Airport amount to between 3.7 percent and 6.8 percent of 
the gross revenues earned by ground transportation 
operators at the Airport. 

Mr. Martin states that all ground transportation 
operators, except taxicab drivers, have the flexibility of 
passing the above trip fee increases through to their 
customers. Effectively, therefore, fees to operate an 
Airport Curbside Management Program are paid by the 
customers who utilize these ground transportation 
services. 



Description: 



On September 21, 1999, the Airport Commission awarded 
a $5,889,100 contract for the first time for operation of a 
Airport Curbside Management Program at all Airport 
terminals, including the new International Terminal. The 



2 According to Mr. Martin, in the case of door-to-door vans, most operators have experienced a 
reduction in overall curbside coordination costs as the prior system was based on a lump sum 
monthly fee regardless of the number of trips made. The current billing system is based on the 
number of trips made, so the larger operators making more trips, and thereby using the curbside 
more, pay their equitable share. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Airport Commission awarded the contract to the 
ShuttlePort/DAJA SFO Joint Venture for one year 
effective November 15, 1999, extendable for up to four 
additional one-year extension options. As previously 
noted, since the original contract was for less than 
$10,000,000, the original contract was not subject to 
Board of Supervisors approval. 

The Airport Curbside Management Program is designed 
to improve the quality of the Airport's ground 
transportation services. The program consolidates: 

• The Airport's taxi dispatching functions previously 
operated by AMPCO System Parking. The 
ShuttlePort/DAJA SFO Joint Venture took over the 
Airport's taxi dispatching functions on March 1, 2000. 

• The Airport's door-to-door van curb coordination 
functions previously operated by three separate 
operating groups, Lorrie's Travel and Tours, 
SuperShuttle, and Transportation Coordinators of 
America. The ShuttlePort/DAJA SFO Joint Venture 
took over the door-to-door van curb coordination 
functions on April 15, 2000. 

• Customer services for the Airport's private scheduled 
transit and limousine operators. This is a new 
function required under the subject contract. The 
ShuttlePort/DAJA SFO Joint Venture commenced 
private -scheduled transit and limousine customer 
service operations on May 27, 2000. For the Airport's 
private scheduled transit operators, ShuttlePort/DAJA 
SFO Joint Venture staff monitor schedule adherence 
and transit activities at the curb, answer customer 
questions, and measure ridership. For limousine 
operators, ShuttlePort/DAJA SFO Joint Venture staff 
monitor the loading zones, answer customer questions, 
and check waybills 3 . 

In addition, Mr. Wong states that all Airport Curbside 
Management Program employees, whether line, 
supervisory, or management staff, are required to report 



3 According to Mr. Wong, a waybill is a document which limousine operators are required to 
complete for each pre-arranged pick-up and drop-off, as required by the California Public Utilities 
Commission (for audit purposes) and their Airport Operating Permits (for verification of pre- 
arranged pick-ups and drop-offs). 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



incidents of solicitation and other illegal activity at the 
Airport to Airport staff and the San Francisco Police 
Department. 

To perform these functions, the ShuttlePort/DAJA SFO 
Joint Venture employs approximately 110 staff. Under 
the subject contract extension, all employees would be 
provided with medical benefits and remunerated at or 
above the levels required by the City's Minimum 
Compensation Ordinance (see Comment No. 6). 

As previously noted, the Airport approved a contract for 
its Airport Curbside Management Program on September 
21, 1999. Attachment II, provided by Mr. Wong, explains 
what Airport ground transportation deficiencies the 
subject contract is intended to address since such a 
contract had never previously been implemented at the 
Airport. According to Mr. Wong, based on the 
performance of services for which the ShuttlePort/DAJA 
SFO Joint Venture has progressively assumed 
responsibility over the last seven months, the Airport 
Commission concluded that the Airport Curbside 
Management Program has improved Airport ground 
transportation providers' services and better managed the 
Airport's limited curbside loading zones in the following 
ways: 

• Increased monitoring of all ground transportation 
functions has provided Airport staff and ground 
transportation operators with additional information 
to ensure that ground transportation services conform 
to the terms of each operator's Airport Operating 
Permit. 

• Increased monitoring has reduced the potential for 
illegal solicitation activities at the various loading 
zones. According to Mr. Martin, the Airport has not 
quantified the extent to which illegal solicitation 
occurs at the Airport. Mr. Martin and Mr. Wong state 
that an audit was conducted by Airport and Office of 
the Controller staff in March and April of 1999. The 
audit report, issued on January 25, 2000, indicated 
that approximately 11 percent of all commercial 
ground transportation trips did not register on the 
Airport's Automatic Vehicle Identification (AVI) 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



System for billing purposes and, therefore, were 
operating illegally at the Airport 4 . Mr. Martin states 
that there has not been a subsequent audit. 

• Increased staffing of individual loading zones has 
increased throughput of ground transportation 
vehicles by better managing traffic volumes. 

• Increased customer service means that the traveling 
public can receive answers to ground transportation 
and other Airport questions from staff who are 
independent of the ground transportation operators, 
and late night arriving passengers can access ground 
transportation information more easily. 

On August 29, 2000, the Airport Commission exercised 
the first one year extension option to allow the 
ShuttlePort/DAJA SFO Joint Venture to continue 
operating the Airport Curbside Management Program for 
a second year effective November 15, 2000. Approval of 
this one year extension increases the total contract cost 
over its first two years to at least $12,761,985. Since that 
amount is more than $10,000,000, Board of Supervisors 
approval is required under the Charter. 



4 AIL ground transportation operators are required to have the appropriate decal or AVI transponder 
affixed to every vehicle registered with the Airport. The Police Department's Airport Bureau is the 
enforcement arm to ensure that any illegal operators at the Airport are cited. According to Mr. 
Martin, Shuttle Port/DAJA SFO Joint Venture staff are an additional resource to supplement Police 
and Airport staff efforts to reduce illegal activities. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Performance 
Measures: 



When the subject resolution was initially heard by the 
Finance and Labor Committee at its September 27, 2000 
meeting, the Budget Analyst noted that the Airport was 
seeking approval to extend the subject contract by up to 
four years without the benefit of performance measures 
which would assess the impact of the ShuttlePort/DAJA 
SFO Joint Venture on ground transportation services at 
the Airport. The Budget Analyst considered performance 
measures to be especially important given, in the 
professional judgment of the Budget Analyst, the 
unquantified, generalized, frequently vague, and often 
input-focused service descriptions contained in the 
ShuttlePort/DAJA SFO Joint Venture's proposal as to 
what services it would provide at the Airport. 

In the professional judgment of the Budget Analyst, the 
value of some of the services provided under the subject 
contract is questionable. For example, according to the 
proposal dated May 14, 1999 from the ShuttlePort/DAJA 
SFO Joint Venture, which is incorporated into the subject 
contract by reference, some of the services to be provided 
by the ShuttlePort/DAJA SFO Joint Venture are as 
follows: 



"Greeting the drivers and passengers." 

"Answering any questions of the operator or patrons." 

"Escorting customers to the next available taxi for the 

desired destination." 

"Providing fare information." 

"Identifying credit card acceptance." 

"Approximating arrival time to the customer's 

destination." 

"Answering hotel and restaurant information 

requests." 

"Providing information about airport services for 

patrons." 

"Encouraging driver courtesy as ambassadors of 

goodwill." 

"Responding immediately to any confrontations 

between drivers and customers." 

"Making sure luggage is attended at all times and 

notifying police immediately of any violations." 

"Assuring that drivers handle luggage." 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



• "Assuring that drivers open vehicle door for 
passenger." 

• "Encouraging pedestrians to use the crosswalks and 
proceed with caution." 

A complete list of the services to be provided by the 
ShuttlePort/DAJA SFO Joint Venture is shown in 
Attachment III, which comprises pages 46-52, 55-56, and 
60-68 of the May 14, 1999 ShuttlePort/DAJA SFO Joint 
Venture proposal incorporated by reference into the 
subject contract. 

In response to the Budget Analyst's concerns, Mr. Wong 
states that the City's contract with the ShuttlePort/DAJA 
SFO Joint Venture has been amended to include the 
following 10 performance measures developed by the 
ShuttlePort/DAJA SFO Joint Venture for the second year 
of the contract. According to Mr. Wong, these 
performance measures would be reviewed periodically 
and changed as conditions warrant. The first five 
performance measures relate to ShuttlePort/DAJA SFO 
Joint Venture financial and staffing management and 
would not, therefore, directly measure the impact on the 
traveling public of the Airport Curbside Management 
Program services. However, the last five performance 
measures would directly measure the actual services 
provided to the traveling public. 

ShuttlePort/DAJA SFO Joint Venture financial and 
staffing management 

(1) Operate within the maximum budget approved by the 
Airport Commission, with budget evaluations 
prepared on a quarterly basis. 5 

(2) Reduce employee turnover in the door-to-door van, 
private scheduled transit, and limousine elements of 
the Airport Curbside Management Program by 10 
percent from the current 50 pei*cent to 40 percent. 

(3) Reduce employee overtime due to absenteeism or 
unfilled positions to no more than 5 percent of payroll 



5 The ShuttlePort/DAJA SFO Joint Venture must submit quarterly budget reports in a format 
approved by the Airport. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



expenditures for all classifications. According to Mr. 
Wong, the transportation industry average is 7 
percent, and the ShuttlePort/DAJA SFO Joint 
Venture has experienced up to 9 percent employee 
overtime during the initial implementation phases of 
the Airport Curbside Management Program in FY 
1999-2000. 

(4) Reduce worker's compensation claim costs by 
achieving a goal of 1.7 lost time accidents per 100,000 
paid employee hours. According to Mr. Wong, the 
current rate is approximately 1.8 lost time accidents 
per 100,000 paid employee hours. Therefore, a 
reduction to 1.7 lost time accidents per 100,000 paid 
employee hours would be an improvement of 
approximately 5.6 percent. This goal also includes the 
establishment of a Safety Committee. 

(5) Staff all positions within 30 days of posting job 
announcements. In addition, ShuttlePort/DAJA SFO 
Joint Venture agrees to "actively seek to recruit, hire 
or promote a qualified female candidate into the 
management group by January 2001." 

ShuttlePort/DAJA SFO Joint Venture services provided 
to the traveling public 

(6) Investigate, report on, and respond in writing to all 
customer complaints within one week of receipt of 
such complaints. 

(7) Ensure that taxicab dispatchers approach all patrons 
within one minute of accessing the taxicab loading 
zones, with taxicab service to be provided to patrons 
within 10 minutes. 

(8) Ensure that door-to-door van curb coordinators 
approach all patrons within one minute of accessing 
the door-to-door van loading zones, with door-to-door 
van service to be provided to patrons within 15 
minutes. 

(9) Ensure that private scheduled transit monitors shall 
approach all patrons within one minute of accessing 
the terminal loading zones. 6 



e Mr. Wong notes that the Airport Curbside Management Program provides services to the Airport's 
private scheduled transit operators, not to public transit operators such as SamTrans which stop at 
different loading zones from those managed by the ShuttlePort/DAJA SFO Joint Venture. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



(10) Ensure that limousine monitors shall approach all 
patrons waiting at the limousine loading zones within 
one minute of accessing such loading zones. 

The Budget Analyst sought an explanation for (a) how 
performance measures 2, 3, 4, and 5 can be enforced, and 
(b) what penalties would be applied by the Airport under 
the contract if any of the above 10 performance measures 
are not met. In response, Mr. Martin states that in the 
Year Two contract, the Airport Director has the 
discretion not to renew the contract for Year Three if the 
performance standards are not met. In addition, the City 
can withhold payments until summary reports detailing 
the performance goals, either monthly or quarterly, are 
received. The contract specifically provides for a $500 per 
day penalty for failure to provide written reports as 
directed by Airport staff. Mr. Martin states that the 
Airport will meet regularly with the ShuttlePort/DAJA 
SFO Joint Venture to ensure that these and any 
additional performance measures considered for inclusion 
in subsequent contracts are met. 

In addition to assessing the ShuttlePort/DAJA SFO Joint 
Venture's performance against the above 10 performance 
measures, Mr. Wong notes the following points: 

• The Airport has the option not to exercise any of the 
three annual contract extension options which would 
remain should the ShuttlePort/DAJA SFO Joint 
Venture's performance be deemed inadequate against 
the above performance measures. However, as 
previously noted, once the Board of Supervisors 
approves the subject ordinance, the three annual 
contract extension options would not be subject to 
Board of Supervisors approval. 

• The Airport also has the right, at its sole discretion, to 
terminate the subject contract for convenience at any 
time. 

• The Program is funded through the fees paid by the 
Airport's ground transportation operators. Therefore, 
according to Mr. Wong, ground transportation 
operators have a strong vested interest in ensuring 
that the ShuttlePort/DAJA SFO Joint Venture 
actually improves the Airport's handling of ground 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

transportation services because the operators are the 
funders of the ShuttlePort/DAJA SFO Joint Venture's 
services. However, the Budget Analyst notes that it is 
the traveling public, as the customers of the ground 
transportation operators, who ultimately pay for the 
contract. 

Contract Revisions: Since the initial Budget Analyst's report of September 27, 

2000, the Airport has made substantive additions to the 
subject contract with the incorporation of (a) the above 10 
performance measures, and (b) other amendments to 
increase the ShuttlePort/DAJA SFO Joint Venture's 
accountability. Attachment IV, provided by the Airport, 
contains a comprehensive list of all changes made to the 
contract, other than the performance measures discussed 
above. 

Despite the significant contractual changes, Mr. Martin 
reports that Ms. Mara Rosales of the City Attorney's 
Office, who represents the Airport, has advised that the 
revised contract does not need to be approved by the 
Airport Commission because the Airport Commission's 
approval of the contract's term, scope, and costs have not 
been affected by any other changes made to the contract. 
The Airport Commission has delegated to the Airport 
Director the authority to negotiate the terms of the 
contract. This authority is limited by the financial terms 
(not to exceed $6,875,000) and the contract term 
(November 15, 2000 to November 14, 2001) prescribed by 
the Airport Commission. Many of the changes made in 
this contract modification are merely clarification of 
contract terms already contained in the contract. The 
imposition of measures to better monitor the contractor's 
performance fall within the authority granted to the 
Airport Director. Inasmuch as the modifications to the 
ShuttlePort/DAJA SFO Joint Venture contract do not 
affect the terms approved by the Airport Commission, no 
further approval by the Airport Commission is required. 
Nevertheless, Mr. Martin states that he has placed the 
revised contract on the Airport Commission's December 
19, 2000 meeting agenda for its approval. 

The Budget Analyst strongly recommends that the Board 
of Supervisors not approve the proposed amended 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

contract, which would authorize up to four one year 
extension options to the ShuttlePort/DAJA SFO Joint 
Venture contractor, unless the Airport Commission 
approves the new amended contract which incorporates 
the new performance measures and other amendments as 
referred to above at its December 19, 2000 meeting. 

Comments: 1. In response to a question by the Budget Analyst 

concerning the authority under which the subject contract 
is currently operating, given the expiration of Year 1 of 
the contract on November 14, 2000, Mr. John Martin, 
Airport Director, states: 

"Pursuant to Section 2A.170 of the San Francisco 
Administrative Code, the [Airport] Commission has 
the authority to enter into all contracts, lease and 
other agreements that relate to matters under its 
jurisdiction. That contracting authority is limited by 
Section 9.118 of the San Francisco Charter that 
provides that contracts, or amendments to contracts, 
requiring anticipated expenditures of ten million 
dollars or more, require the approval of the Board of 
Supervisors. On August 29, 2000 the Airport 
Commission approved the exercise of the first of four 
annual renewal options for the ShuttlePort/DAJA 
contract, in an amount not to exceed $6,875 million. 
The combination of the initial year budget (up to $5.9 
million) with the first year option (up to $6,875 
million) exceeds the $10 million threshold for Board of 
Supervisors approval. However, to the extent that the 
[Airport] Commission has contracting authority of less 
than $10 million, and expenditures to 
ShuttlePort/DAJA to date are significantly below the 
$10 million trigger, the ShuttlePort/DAJA contract is 
currently operating pursuant to the August 29, 2000 
approval by the [Airport] Commission, up to the $10 
million limit." 

2. The initial contract was awarded to the 
ShuttlePort/DAJA SFO Joint Venture after a Request for 
Proposals (RFP) process which is described in the 
attached memorandum from Mr. Wong (Attachment V). 
Mr. Wong states that there were three proposers: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



• CDSNet, Inc. which submitted a proposal in the 
amount of $6,265,654 for Year 1, and $6,109,434 for 
Year 2. 

• A joint venture of Polaris Research and Development, 
Inc. and TTMC/Quick ATM Inc. which submitted a 
proposal in the amount of $6,598,661 for Year 1, and 
$6,734,995 for Year 2. 

• The ShuttlePort/DAJA SFO Joint Venture which 
submitted a proposal in the amount of $11,869,142 in 
Year 1, and $11,386,864 in Year 2. 

The financial data required by the Airport from the three 
proposers did not request estimated costs for Years 3 
through 5. According to Mr. Martin, the Airport did not 
consider such costs to be relevant because (a) the Airport 
planned to negotiate the contract budgets in advance, and 
(b) it was not known at that time whether the Airport 
Curbside Management Program would expand into 
computerized dispatching and ticketing (as provided for in 
the RFP). 

Although the ShuttlePort/DAJA SFO Joint Venture's 
proposal contained the highest cost of the three proposals, 
at a cost of $5,603,488 or approximately 89.4 percent 
more in Year 1 and $5,277,430 or approximately 86.4 
percent more in Year 2 than the lowest cost proposal from 
CDSNet, Inc., the Airport Commission awarded the 
contract to the ShuttlePort/DAJA SFO Joint Venture 
based on the evaluation of the three proposals. The in- 
house evaluation panel, with one member from outside 
the Airport, comprised (a) Mr. Marcus Perro, then Airport 
Chief Financial Officer, and currently Deputy Airport 
Director - Finance, (b) Mr. Tryg McCoy, Assistant Deputy 
Airport Director, (c) Mr. Ron Fang, Airport Americans 
with Disabilities Act Coordinator, (d) Ms. Alice Sgourakis, 
Airport Ground Transportation Manager, and (e) Ms. 
Shirley Carlson, Landside Operations, Sacramento 
International Airport. According to the score sheets of the 
Airport's five-member evaluation panel, the 
ShuttlePort/DAJA SFO Joint Venture proposal was 
consistently rated highest by four of the five reviewers 
who reviewed both the written proposals and oral 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



presentations prior to the Airport's consideration of the 
three proposals' costs 7 . 

3. The Budget Analyst notes that, whereas the original 
proposal submitted by the ShuttlePort/DAJA SFO Joint 
Venture was estimated by the ShuttlePort/DAJA SFO 
Joint Venture to cost $11,869,142 in Year 1, and 
$11,386,864 in Year 2, the ShuttlePort/DAJA SFO Joint 
Venture agreed to undertake the contract for a Year 1 
budget of $5,889,100, which is $5,980,042 or 
approximately 50.4 percent less than the cost contained in 
the original proposal, and a Year 2 budget of $6,872,885, 
which is $4,513,979 or approximately 39.6 percent less 
than the cost contained in the original proposal. 
According to Mr. Martin, after authorization was given by 
the Airport Commission to conduct contract negotiations 
with the ShuttlePort/DAJA SFO Joint Venture, Airport 
staff successfully negotiated a reduction in the cost of 
Year 1 to $5,889,100. Mr. Martin states that many of the 
reductions were due to the fact that the 
ShuttlePort/DAJA SFO Joint Venture's original cost 
proposal included substantially more personnel than the 
minimum numbers set forth in the original RFP. 

4. Mr. Wong states that no ground transportation 
activity can now occur in the Airport which is not 
controlled by the ShuttlePort/DAJA SFO Joint Venture. 
No legal ground transportation operator can provide 
services into or out of the Airport without paying a fee 
that covers the costs of the ShuttlePort/DAJA SFO Joint 
Venture contract. Based on information provided by the 
Airport, the Airport Curbside Management Program 
covers (a) 80 taxi companies, (b) 14 door-to-door van 
operators, (c) 778 limousine operators, and (d) 10 
scheduled transit companies which have the requisite 
Airport Operating Permits. The Airport Curbside 
Management Program does not cover (a) seven pre- 
arranged transit operators, (b) 252 charter bus operators, 
and (c) 54 courtesy shuttles. 



7 According to Mr. Gary Wong of the HRC, at the time that this evaluation panel was convened, 
HRC guidelines did not permit evaluation panels to consider any questions about price or other 
monetary items. Following legal clarification, the decision whether or not to evaluate financial 
information is done on a case-by-case basis depending on what the responsible departments request. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



5. According to Mr. Wong, the ShuttlePort/DAJA SFO 
Joint Venture proposal, as incorporated by reference into 
the subject contract, provides for the longer term 
expansion of the Airport Curbside Management Program 
to include the potential creation and staffing of passenger 
waiting lounges (as outlined on pages 53-54 of the May 
14, 1999 ShuttlePort/DAJA SFO Joint Venture proposal) 
and Airport terminal ground transportation ticketing 
operations (as outlined on pages 57-59 of the May 14, 
1999 ShuttlePort/DAJA SFO Joint Venture proposal). 
Mr. Martin states that it is still unknown whether the 
Airport will expand the Airport Curbside Management 
Program into computerized dispatching and ticketing, as 
provided for in the original RFP. 

6. According to Mr. Wong and Mr. Martin, the $983,785, 
or approximately 16.7 percent, increase in the contract 
cost between Year One and Year Two (shown in the Table 
above) reflects the following changes: 

• Staffing enhancements and pay raises, including the 
addition of 12 new positions at the new International 
Terminal, and pay raises to comply with the Minimum 
Compensation Ordinance, increased by $559,735. 
According to Mr. Wong, of this $559,735 increase, 
$42,640 is required to comply with the Minimum 
Compensation Ordinance while other pay raises are 
due to collective bargaining agreements. 

• Employee benefits increased by $332,168. 

• Equipment leases and purchases, and project costs 
reduced by $91,267. 

• Service subcontracts increased by $25,500. 

• Annual support services increased by $75,179. 

• Under the terms of the contract, the fee amount 
increased by $82,470. 

A break-down of the above figures is contained in 
Attachment VI. However, as noted in the "Amount" 
section above, the actual difference between Year 1 
projected expenditures ($3,950,000) and the Year 2 
budget ($6,872,885) is $2,922,885. This difference of 
$2,922,885 comprises (a) the $983,785 explained above, 
and (b) the Year One underexpenditure of $1,939,100 
against the original budget, which reflects the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

expenditure difference between the phased 
implementation of services in Year One and providing the 
full range of services anticipated for the entire Year Two 
period. 

7. The proposed ordinance would authorize the Airport to 
provide up to a total of four additional one-year extension 
options. Since the first one-year extension option with the 
ShuttlePort/DAJA SFO Joint Venture would be effective 
November 15, 2000, the subject ordinance should be 
amended for retroactivity. 

8. As previously noted, once the subject ordinance is 
approved, the subsequent three one-year extension 
options would not be subject to separate future approval 
by the Board of Supervisors. 

9. According to Mr. Wong, San Francisco International 
Airport is the first and, so far, the only airport in the 
United States to design and operate a program 
comparable to the proposed Airport Curbside 
Management Program. According to Mr. Wong, Atlanta, 
Los Angeles, and Phoenix are considering implementing 
comparable programs at their airports, but such 
programs have not yet been implemented at any United 
States airports. 

10. As noted above, if approved, the total estimated 
amount of the City's contract with the ShuttlePort/DAJA 
SFO Joint Venture over a full five-year term would be at 
least $32,080,640 assuming that the projected Year 2 
expenditure of $6,872,885 is repeated for Years 3 through 
5. 

Recommendations: 1. In accordance with Comment No. 8 above, amend the 
proposed ordinance for retroactivity. 

2. Do not approve the proposed ordinance unless the 
Airport Commission approves a new amended contract 
which incorporates the new performance measures and 
other amendments made by the Airport's administration 
as noted in the above report at its December 19, 2000 
meeting. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



3. Irrespective of the Budget Analyst's first two 
recommendations, the Budget Analyst considers approval 
of the proposed ordinance, as amended, to be a policy 
matter for the Board of Supervisors because the following 
matters have not been fully explained to the Budget 
Analyst in a way which fully warrants an overall contract 
cost of at least $32,808,640: 

(a) The Airport's full justification for this contract. 

(b) The reliability and comprehensiveness of the new 
performance measures. 

(c) The fact that the ShuttlePort/DAJA SFO Joint 
Venture's originally proposed costs were $5,603,488 
or approximately 89.4 percent more in Year 1 and 
$5,277,430 or approximately 86.4 percent more in 
Year 2 than the lowest cost proposal submitted to the 
Airport. 

(d) The fact that the ShuttlePort/DAJA SFO Joint 
Venture finally agreed to perform the subject 
contract for $5,980,042 or approximately 50.4 
percent less than its original cost proposal for Year 1, 
and for $4,513,979 or approximately 39.6 percent less 
that its original cost proposal for Year 2. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



SEP.21'2000 12:55 650 794 6508 



LANDSIDE OPS 



Attachment I 



CurbrirfeMngrProg. Cost Alia cation*: 



FY 00/01 



Tm 
T-mio 

SciJluIed Buses 
Orv-JDemand Vans 
*Bas«d on # of Trips 



Share cf Trios 



,.SS.889,000 



42.8% 

25.3% 

4.3% 

2fl fi&fi 

100.0% 



S2,873,000 
SL550.000 



S253.00O 
SI .212,000 



$5,888,000 



114- 



SEP. 21*2000 11:51 650 794 6508 



LANDSIDE OPS 



Attachment 




San Francboj International Airport 



Fax 



Data 

September 22. 2000 



«O»8097 
iai Hnrrhca CA 9*128 



No of p. 
1 



Alan Gibson. Budget Analysts Office 

Pax Nuratm 

415.252.0461 

TaaNaaaaaai 

415.554.7642x233 




Ji^ Wong. Senior Transportation Ra nner 
550.821.8508 



Tail 

650.821.6512 



CaaBBBMta 

In regards to specific issues that led to the Airport to create the Curbside Management Program, they 
include but are not limited to: 

1. Complaints from the taxicab drivers regarding the existing taxicab service. SpecificaJry, they drivers 
wanted a more professional transportation company experienced in taxicab dispatching to conduct the 
operation rather than the Airport's current public parking operator. 

2. Complaints from various door-to-door van operators regarding alleged dispatching irregularities. 

3. Complaints from various door-to-door van operators regarding the apparent lack of conststant training of 
door-to-door van curb coordlnators. 

4. Complaints from the public as to both the quality of the information given by the various dispatchers and 
curb coordinators and their customer service demeanor. 

5. Apparent lapses in service being provided by scheduled transit cperatcrs en their Airport-approved 
schedules. 

6. The need to further improve the percentage of air passengers using ground transportation services tc 
better manage increasing passenger volumes through the Airport. 

7. The need to further improve efficiencies in the various ground transportation loading zenes by expediting 
passenger pickups. 

8. Increasing numbers of operators illegally soliciting passengers at or near ground transpcrsticn leading 
zenes. 



9. The need to provide quality and comprehensive ground transportation service during late night hours for 
our customers on delayed arriving flights. 



"TTie informadon contained In n» lax meaaaga. ind tnc aecsmoanymg documarrx. i pnvacjea anc conlxxnflaf. Thia coomuncsnon a Inanaec Oaat Xr 
Irto ua of Tic IncMduel or arrtjty nana soove. If r* roaear a TC message Is nctffw imancotf recpsam. or M errpicyee af aeers reocnsiUe to delrvar 
It 10 ma Intended raoolont. you art haraoy noaflca [KK any claaarrxnsnon. dertouCon or eooyma at Tsa commumesaon a ac, crorrtiiujc if you rave 
rocrav>>a jus eommunicisan m error, pastaa rxsdy m imrrtestotefy Ey lei es none. 650.73* 60OO 



WOV. 13 '2 000 13:42 650 794 6508 



LANDS IDE OPS 



Attachment III 
Fage -1 of 19 




San Francisco International Airport 



Fax 



Data 

November 13, 2000 



No oYP«flo» 

19 



Alan Gibson - Budget Analyst's Office 

Fax Number 

415.252.0461 

Tat Numbar 

415.554.7642 x233 




Sox 8097 
Sjn hfoMci-jro, CA Ml 23 
www.flyr.fo.com 



bng, Senior Transportation Planner 



T#! Numbar 

650.821.6512 



Corn mania 

Alan: 

Per your telephone request this a.m., I am providing exerpts from ShuttlePort/DAJA's May 14, 1999 
proposal identifying the various elements of the Curbslde Management Program. Please note that the 
Airport has chosen at this time to only implement Phase I as there may be references to additional phases 
of the program. 

As previously discussed with you over the telephone, the new contract documents will further specify the 
workscope as conditions have changed between the time the proposal was submitted and the present, as 
well agreed upon performance standards we have discussed in prior telephone calls. 



I hope this is helpful. 



z: Edwin Leung/Alice Sgourakis/Chron/Flle 15S 
Melba Yee - Fax: 1.5051 
Eddie Angeles - Fax: 1 .5086 
Peter Nardoza - Fax: 1.5005 



The Information contained in this fan mossogo. and W; Accompanying documenta, la privileged and confidential. Tula communication la Intended onry 'or 
\f\b use of mc Individual or entity nomad above. If Dig roador of IMS message Is not me miended recipient, or ine employee or agent responsible to deliver 
It to ina Intended recipient, you ore nereoy norhled that any dissemination, distribution or copying of tnie communication n ilncUy prohibited If you h»va 
received t.iln communication In error, please notify us immedlwery by lelepnone, 8S0.794 5000. 



Attachment III 
Faee 2 oi 19 



TAXICAB DISPATCHING 



Generally speaking, a good airport moves their passengers as quickJy. conveniently, safely, and pleasantly as 
possible. Passengers have little patience for long lines at baggage claim, the ticket counter, or the taxi stand. 

In our systematic approach to controlling the curb, we limit the number of vehicles at the curb. At first glance, 
this might seem counter to our stated goal of moving passengers. However, just loading taxicabs randomly off 
the entire curbside is not only chaotic, but also dangerous. Also, to keep order, taxi and limousine drivers are 
prohibited from soliciting, by either manner or speech. 

Our common responsibilities are for 
dispatching taxicabs from an airport holding 
area to a feed line, if applicable, and curbside 
loading zones. Normally sufficient cabs are 
holding at the airport at most times during the 
day with a wait between fares varying on the 
level of deplaning passengers. Due in part to 
the reasonable fares to downtown, a high 
percentage of passengers use these vehicles. 
Thus, the goal is to make their availability to 
passengers as convenient as possible. 

ShuttlePort/DAJA will place calls to 
companies for any anticipated or unanticipated 

shortage during peak periods. Our computerized database will identify the contact person and telephone number. 

service area, and respective fares of all taxi companies licensed to conduct passenger pick-ups at the airport. 

Over time and through experience, we will be able to short list companies that can be most responsive for 
specific situations. 

No double parking will be allowed. Our observations have witnessed the chaos at the taxi stands when curbs 
block and impede traffic by double parking. This practice is proven to only cause further delays during periods 
with long waiting lines. 

No confrontations between customers and drivers will be tolerated. Within reason. ShuttlePort/DAJA believes in 
the old adage, "the customer is always right". We will never compromise safety considerations that would put 
any one at risk. However, we know our job is to accommodate the public and insure a positive experience. We 
strive to make each ShuttlePort location a model where both our peers in the industry and the public at large will 
acknowledge our reputation for first class operations that put the public first. 

Our supervision will allow no refusal of passengers by drivers for short trips. We acknowledge the special 
accommodations given drivers assigned to short trips that allow the respective driver preferential placement upon 
an earlier return to the airport. 




Page 46 



Attachment III 
Pa^e 3 of 19 



Fare information on all transportation companies will be in our data base and available to all personnel having 
direct contact with the public. 

Our staff will encourage group taxi trips. ShuttlePort/DAJA and its affiliates promote shared rides and all transit 
modes of public conveyance that reduce the level of environmental quality by single occupancy vehicles, or in 
the case of taxi service, only one passenger per vehicle. 



OUR APPROACH 



Quality Assurance Guidelines 



Enforcing airport rules and regulations. 

Greeting the drivers and passengers. 

Having the operator staying with the taxi at all times. 

Communicating with the operator to provide minimum patron waiting times. 

Answering any questions of the operator or patrons. 

Escorting customers to the next available taxi for the desired destination. 

Providing fare information. 

Identifying credit card acceptance. 

Approximating arrival time to the customer's destination. 

Answering hotel and restaurant information requests. 

Providing information about airport services for patrons. 

Establishing proactive safety program. 

Enforcing vehicle and driver standards. 

Maintaining radio communications. 

Scheduling reliefs. 

Providing high level of supervision - one supervisor for each terminal. 

Supervising in the staging areas 24 hours a day. 

Maintaining proper queuing procedures - correct number of taxicabs at all times. 

Record keeping as required. 



ShutaePort/DAJA Value-Added 



Upgrading written procedures with airport sign-off. 

Encouraging driver courtesy as ambassadors of goodwill. 

Responding immediately to any confrontations between drivers and customers. 

Assuring compliance of curbside safety practices at all times. 

Providing special attention to frail, elderly , and physically challenged customers. 

Assisting in the supervision of small children and service animals. 

Providing bilingual assistance through designated personnel and the ATT language program. 

Making sure luggage is attended at all times and notifying police immediately of any violations. 

Assuring that drivers handle luggage. 

Assuring that drivers open vehicle door for passenger. 

Encouraging pedestrians to use the crosswalks and proceed with caution. 

Keeping the curbside free of obstacles and debris. 

Keeping traffic flow moving at all times. 

Patrol roadways 1 am to 6 am. 

Turning lost and found over to airport police. 



Page 47 



Attachment Ii; 
Pape k of 19 



INSPECTIONS 

ShuttlePort/DAJA ongoing inspections will include monitoring the following taxicab driver requirements: 
A -Card 
Taxicab badge 
CA driver license 
Waybill 

Current taxicab pass 
Certification decal 
Valid taxicab medaJlion 
Street map 
Comment cards 
Photo ID 

CA vehicle registration 
Schedule of rates posted 
Receipts 

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 

Upon airport approval, inclusive of scope specifications. ShuttlePort/DAJA will conduct a comprehensive 
operational analysis of airport taxi operations. A final report will provide detailed recommendations to improve 
the safely, effectiveness and efficiency of the current policies and procedures. This special study could provide 
recommendations within 90 days. 

Study Scope 

The study scope will include specific recommendations to include but not limited to the following: 

■ Taxicab Row Process 

■ Taxi Dispatcher Responsibilities 

• Taxi Lot Procedures 

■ Reporting Violations Procedures 

• Special needs, accessible taxi called up 

■ Vehicle standards and dress code 



Page 48 



Attachment III 
Page 5 o.t l l J 



DOOR TO DOOR VAN COORDINATION 



The newest and most innovative service, and the greatest challenge to the taxicafa industry, as well as airport 
ground transportation management, is the advent or" the shared-ride on-demand door-to-door van service. 
Numerous airports have had to increase enforcement and monitoring staff to keep up with the proliferation of 
services and vehicles, and have even required staff to be present at all times to referee competing operators and 
preclude or resolve anv conflicts. 



QUALITY ASSURANCE GUIDELINES 



General Assignments 




- - '^h%^mm 






Subcontracting with Super Shunle forcurbside personnel hosts in the Blue Zone. 

Subcontracting with Lorries forcurbside personnel hosts in the Red Zone. 

Providing ShuttlePort/DAJA employees forcurbside hosts in the Yellow Zone. 

Enforcing airport rules and regulations. 

Greeting the drivers and passengers. 

Having the operator staying with the van at 

all times. 

Communicating with the operator to 

provide minimum patron waiting times. 

Answering any questions of the operator or 

patrons. 

Esconing customers to the next available 

van to the desired destination. 

Providing fare information. 

Identifying credit card acceptance. 

Approximating departure time from the 

airport if any minimal delay is applicable. 

Approximating arrival time to the customer's destination. 

Answering hotel and restaurant information requests. 

Providing information about airport services for patron. 

Establishing proactive safety program. 

Enforcing vehicle and driver standards. 

Maintaining radio communications. 

Scheduling reliefs. 

Providing high level of supervision - one supervisor for each terminal. 

Supervising in the staging areas 24 hours a day. 

Maintaining proper queuing procedures - correct number of vans. 

Maintaining zones with unbiased management. 

Record keeping inclusive of van. date. time, curbside arrival and departure times, and passenger 

counts. 



Page 49 



Attachment III 
Paee b ot l l J 



ShutrJePort/DAJA Value-Added Services 

Upgrading written procedures with airport sign-off. 

Encouraging driver courtesy as ambassadors of goodwill. 

Responding immediately to any confrontations between drivers and customers. 

Assuring compliance of curbside safety practices at all times. 

Providing special attention to frail, elderly . and physically challenged customers. 

Assisting in the supervision of small children and service animals. 

Providing bilingual assistance through trained personnel and the ATT language program. 

Making sure luggage is attended at all times and notifying police immediately of any violations. 

Assuring that drivers handle luggage on to and off the van. 

Assuring that drivers open vehicle door for passenger. 

Encouraging pedestrians to use the crosswalks and proceed with caution. 

Keeping the curbside free of obstacles and debris. 

Keeping traffic flow moving at all times. 

Patrol roadways 1 am to 6 am. 

Turning lost and found over to airpon police. 



Page 50 



Attachment III 
Paee 7 of 19 



SCHEDULED BUS MONITORING 



ShuttlePort/DAJA draws on ATC's 74 years of 
experience in the bus business. We provide both charter 
bus and city line bus service to airports across the 
country. In addition, we managed major special event 
airport logistics inclusive of World Cup Games, 
Olympic Games. Papal Visits, and Super Bowls. We 
have the proven procedures from our hands on 
experience moving tens of thousands of people 
including VTPs. Heads-of-S rates, the Dream Team, 
athletes, and visitors from around the world. 

Buses, which require large areas of curb space, have 

become more prevalent with the advent of destination 

management. This is the planned arrival of large groups 

and conventions. Unfortunately, buses require a longer 

amount of time on the curb to load. Therefore, buses require an area rhar will not negatively affect other curbside 

loading activities. Our staff will monitor their operation for on-time performance, scheduled versus actual. 

inclusive of early arrivals or later than 10-minute departures, and passenger counts. This information will 

provide the airport performance measures with ongoing fend analysis. 




QUALITY ASSURANCE GUIDELINES 



Basic General Assignment Rules 



Enforcing airport rules and regulations. 

Greeting the drivers and passengers. 

Having the operator staying with the bus at all times. 

Communicating with the operator to assist in on-time performance. 

Answering any questions of the operator or patrons. 

Escorting customers to the next available bus to the desired destination. 

Providing fare information. 

Identifying credit card acceptance. 

Approximating departure time from the airport if any minimal delay is applicable. 

Approximating arrival time to the customer's destination. 

Answering hotel and restaurant information requests. 

Providing information about airport services for patrons. 

Establishing proactive safety program. 

Enforcing vehicle and driver standards. 

Maintaining radio communications. 

Scheduling reliefs. 

Providing high level of supervision - one supervisor for each terminal. 

Supervising in the sraging areas 24 hours a day. 



Page 51 



Attachment III 
Paee B of 1? 



ShutbePort/DAJA Value-Added 



Upgrading written procedures with airport sign- off. 

Encouraging driver courtesy as ambassadors of goodwill. 

Responding immediately to any confrontations between drivers and customers. 

Assuring compliance of curbside safety practices at all times. 

Providing special attention to frail, elderly . and physically challenged customers. 

Assisting in the supervision of small children and service animals. 

Providing bilingual assistance through designated personnel and the ATT language program. 

Making sure luggage is attended at all times and notifying police immediately of any violations. 

Assuring that drivers handle luggage on to and off the bus. 

Checking for clean lavatories on over the road buses. 

Assuring that drivers open vehicle door for passenger. 

Encouraging pedestnans to use the crosswalks and proceed with caution. 

Keeping the curbside free of obstacles and debris. 

Keeping traffic flow moving at all times. 

Patrol roadways 1 am to 6 am. 

Lost and found turned over to airport police. 



Page 52 



Attachment III 
Page 9 of 1? 



LIMOUSINE DISPATCHING 




Our approach to develop, operate, staff and maintain 
computer-assisted limousine dispatching includes our 
firm, intelitran. to develop a system that is efficient 
and cost effective. The system will provide real time 
audit and tracking information access for airport 
officials. The system will have full redundancy to 
assure complete uninterrupted capability at all times. 
However, our intelitran experience has shown that 
costs can be significantly reduced if the system is 
allowed to be shut down for maintenance just a few 
minutes each day during a non-peak period. 

ShuttiePort/DAJA proposes to use our software 
development company, intelitran. to develop minicomputer software for limousine dispatching, intelitran is 
responsible for 1 2 door-to-door computerized dispatching brokerages including Oakland. 

SFO does not currently permit concession limousines to engage in demand walk-up service business. 
ShuttlePort/DAJA will prevent solicitation by another limousine company not appropriately assigned with full 
supervision of the staging area. 

Phase I primary responsibilities are to call the respective limousines to the curbside as required while maintaining 
8 stations and a staging area. 

In Phase II each of the limousine staging areas and ground transportation areas loading areas are to be equipped 
with a computer terminal and printer to facilitate limousine dispatching. We will include backup units to ensure 
system reliability at all times. In brief, the limousine driver tells staging area of the specific pre-arranged trip and 
then the staging area calls appropriate curbside coordinator. When the passenger arrives at the loading area, the 
coordinator notifies the staging area, and in rum the correct limousine is dispatched. 

Recordkeeping 

ShuttlePort/DAJA will document each limousine arrival by: 

" Company name. 

■ Charter party certificate number. 

■ License plate number. 

■ Date. 

■ Time. 

■ Name of the party to be picked up. 

" Other information (special needs, wheel chair accessible). 



Page 55 



Attachment 
Pa?e 10 of 



III 



QUALITY ASSURANCE GUIDELINES 



Basic General Assignment Rules 

Identifying specific vehicles in the staging areas. 

Providing sufficient information to the limousine dispatcher in the designated holding area to 

dispatch limousine to the curb of the appropriate waiting area 

Generating a paper receipt with name of company, charter party certificate number, and vehicle 

license plate number. 

Providing online remote interactive auditing and tracking functions. 

Providing a database of dispatching record with two-year history. 

Enforcing airport rules and regulations. 

Greeting the drivers and passengers. 

Having the operator staying with the limousine at all times. 

Answering any questions of the operator or patrons. 

Approximating arrival time to the customer's destination. 

Answering hotel and restaurant information requests. 

Providing information about airport services for patrons. 

Establishing proactive safety program. 

Enforcing vehicle and driver standards. 

Maintaining radio communications. 

Scheduling reliefs. 

Providing high level of supervision - one supervisor for each terminal. 

Supervising in the staging areas 24 hours a day. 

Maintaining proper queuing procedures - correct number of taxicabs at all times. 

Record keeping as required. 

ShuttJePort/DAJA Value-Added 

■ Upgrading written procedures with airpon sign-off. 

■ Encouraging driver counesy as ambassadors of goodwill. 

» Responding immediately to any confrontations between drivers and customers. 

■ Assuring compliance of curbside safety pracuces at all times. 

■ Providing special attention to frail, elderly , and physically challenged customers. 

■ Assisting in the supervision of small children and service animals. 

■ Providing bilingual assistance through designated personnel and the ATT language program. 

■ Making sure luggage is attended at all times and notifying police immediately of any violations. 

■ Assuring that drivers handle luggage. 

■ Assuring that drivers open vehicle door for passenger. 

• Encouraging pedestrians to use the crosswalks and proceed with cauuon. 

■ Keeping the curbside free of obstacles and debris. 

■ Keeping traffic flow moving at all times. 

■ Patrol roadways 1 am to 6 am. 

■ Turning lost and found over to airport police. 



Page 56 



Attachment III 
Paee 11 or 19 



EMPLOYEE APPROACH 



OVERVIEW 



Standard methods for recruiting and selecting personnel help provide a consistent level of quality. The existence 
and proper maintenance of a formal evaluation directly related to job responsibilities and subsequent goals and 

objectives serve as a well-defined basis for measurement of 

I performance. This process forms the basis for salary increases and 
n e invest in our employees. 1 promotions. The personnel review is designed not only to review 

wmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm^m mmm specific practices. It is also to determine the general environment of 



the organization and procedures and to train and positively improve each staff person. 

Procedures are necessary to ensure consistency and relevance of training programs and to ensure that all 
employees have the opportunity to improve their performance and advance in the organization. 

Supervisors conduct informal ongoing evaluations to give opinions to employees regarding their performance. 
Goals and objectives' reviews are recommended for frequent evaluation. New supervisors are trained how to 
evaluate staff and give appropriate opinions as part of their orientation shortly after they accept their position. 

The Project Manager takes the lead for employee actions. A form is used for these actions. Records are filed 
exclusively under lock in Administration. Appropriate follow up depends on the specific infraction. Drug abuse 
related infractions require periodic testing. Referrals to counseling require following up. 

Should the service be awarded to ShuttlePort/DAJA, sufficient and well-qualified personnel are to be selected, 
hired and trained. All personnel will be fully trained and qualified to provide all services outlined in the RFP. 

ShuttlePort/DAJA. is genuinely interested in developing employees' skills, and broadening their background. 
PERSONNEL HIRING GUIDELINES 

Hiring Procedures 

We are committed to hiring the best-qualified applicants for positions within the company and providing 
the resources to its employees to maintain and improve their qualifications. Most of the positions within 
the transportation field are both safety sensitive and public trust positions that require a high degree of 
understanding of people with disabilities. We recognize that these positions require individuals who 
have a true service orientation, sensitivity of persons who are physically or mentally impaired high 
integrity, safety consciousness, and a good work ethic. We invest in our employees and have worked 
diligently to develop programs and have future plans to implement more programs to attract and keep 
the very best employees available. 



Page 60 

126 



Attachment III | 
Page Yl of 19 




In addition to attracting highly qualified 
people. ShunlePort/DAJA is committed 
to working within the community 10 aid 
its citizens and to work with 
organizations in helping individuals 
within the community become 
productive citizens. ShuttlePort/DAJA 
has a training program that can take 
unskilled and under-skilled individuals 
and help them develop the necessary 
tools to have a meaningful and 
rewarding career working with 
customers. 



We will provide more than a good faith effort in matching the availability of women and minorities in 
the City. County and Bay area By working directly with community outreach, government and non- 
profit agencies as well as targeted population newspaper and radio media, our record of accomplishment 
in the industry is award winning. 

The human resource team consists of experienced human resource professionals familiar with state and 
federal employment laws and successful human resources/payroll practices. The staff strives to treat 
employees as their customers and to provide a comprehensive program that addresses both the 
employees' and employers' needs. 

The basis of this comprehensive program is a thorough job description for each position. The 

description includes essential job functions and 
qualifications (education, experience, additional 
knowledge, abilities and skills). Accurate job 
descriptions are vital to ensuring compliance with legal 
requirements with the Fair Labor Standards Act 



ShuttlePort/DAJA is an equal 
opportunity employer. 



(FLSA), Civil Richts Act. American with Disabilities, etc. 



Hiring Process 



Current and accurate job descriptions are the center of a successful recruitment program. 
ShuttlePort/DAJA has a policy of posung all vacancies and filling vacancies from internal applicants 
whenever there are qualified employees. External ads and contacts with outside organizations may also 
occur concurrent with the posting if there is a possibility that a qualified applicant cannot be found 
within the company. Both internal and external job announcements are created from the job description 
to ensure that the proper essential functions and qualifications are sought each time the job opens. 

ShuttlePort/DAJA is an equal opportunity employer. All external advertisements and job 
announcements include the words, "An Equal Opportunity/Affirmarive Action Employer". 

ShuttlePort/DAJA has in place personnel policies and procedures to be used in recruiting, hiring, and 
training all necessary personnel. The selection of competent, conscientious personnel is vital to our goal 
of achieving the best possible match between applicants for jobs and the requirements of the job 
descriptions. Each applicant shall pass a drug screen and no felony convictions. Once selected for an 
available position, the best possible orientation and training program will be provided to equip the 
applicant for responsibilities with the organization. 



Page 61 



127 



Attachment III 
Paee 13 of 19 



ShuttlePort/DAJA's goal is to hire the best-qualified available candidates for all positions. Specific 
procedures for hiring new employees have been developed and will be utilized. This is an important 
area of management concern, since workers and staff form the basic foundation of each operation. Also. 
many hiring practices and policies are mandated or regulated by various government agencies. 

Minimum qualifications must be job related and comply with the standards established by EEO 
guidelines, as well as by state and local rules. Additionally, the following information must be obtained 
and verified from each applicant: 

Current position, actual responsibilities and length of service: 

Last three previous positions and duties and responsibilities of each: 

Brief description of entire career and reasons for any gaps in employment: 

Reasons for leaving current employment position: 

Reasons for wanting to join this company, including the applicant's knowledge of our operation: 

Criminal records check. 

When all information has been verified and the interview is complete, the employee will be scheduled 
for a physical and a drug/alcohol-screening test. Employment is contingent upon successful completion 
of all requirements. 

ShuttlePort/DAJA's employee selection procedures and standards are intended to seek candidates well 
suited and capable of performing the requirements of the positions. The success of ShuttlePort/DAJA 
will be greatly determined by hiring decisions made at all levels today. 

Managers and others with hiring authority will give proper consideration to such factors as education, 
experience, skills, advancement potential and character. However, all aspects of the selection and hiring 
process will be administered without regard to race, color, national origin, religion, sex. age or disabled 
status. 

Minimum Standards 

ShuttlePort/DAJA has the following minimum standards for employment: 

" Applicants must not be users of. or addicted to any legally controlled drugs or substances or alcohol. 

■ Applicants should have at least a high school diploma or equivalency for most categories of 
employment. Employees who do not meet this requirement will be encouraged to achieve it. 
ShuttlePort/DAJA proposes to establish a GRE program onsite coordinated with the local school 
system and airport officials. 

■ Applicants convicted of felonies may not be hired. Employee selection managers should remember 
that it is illegal to ask any applicant whether he or she has ever been arrested, questioned, detained or 
otherwise in police custody. The company does have the right to fully explore and consider 
conviction records. 

■ Applicants must be legal U.S. residents or possess acceptable alien resident status. Proof of status 
should be accomplished during the application screening process. 

Drug-Free Workplace 



Page 62 



Attachment III 
Paqe 14 of 1 C J 



Drug and/or alcohol screens are conducted to ensure a drug-free workplace. Testing includes pre- 
employment, reasonable cause, periodic, random, return to 
duty, and follow up. All supervisors and managers have 
been trained on their responsibilities in this area. New 
supervisors also receive training, and refresher training is 
provided on a regular basis. 



Drug and/or alcohol screens 
are conducted to ensure a drug- 
free workplace. 



Cost-effective contracts will be in place for collection, testing and medicaJ review. An Anti-Drug Policy 
will be in place to ensure that our commitment to a drug-free workplace is maintained. Employee 
assistance will be provided to any employee who voluntarily comes forward with a substance abuse 
problem prior to selection for drug testing. 

Affirmative Action/Equal Employment Opportunrty/ADA 

ShunlePort/DAJA policy is to afford equal opportunity in all employment decisions to all individuals 
regardless of race, color, religion, sex. national origin, age. marital or veteran starus and disabilities 
which do not affect the applicant's ability to perform the essential duties of the job. Therefore. 
ShuttlePort/DAJA will take any and aJI necessary actions to ensure that this policy is followed. 



TRAINING PLAN 



Hiring and Training - Two of the most important 

elements in the delivery of ground transportation 

management. 



We have long recognized that proper hiring, training, and continuous maintenance of skills is one of the most 

important elements of delivery of transportation. 
As a service provider to the public. 
ShuttlePort/DAJA recognizes that the perception 
of the quality of that service is very often 
determined at the point of delivery. Patrons can be 
won or lost forever, with the determining factor 

often being the ability to select the right people for the job and to provide them with the training required to 

ensure that each curbside experience is a pleasant one for the passengers. 

We always attempted to commit a substantia! portion of its resources to the selection, hiring, and training of our 
employees. Although it may cost a little more on the front end. it is cost effective through increased customer 
satisfaction and reduced personnel turnover and 
accidents. 

Our selection process requires a careful screening of 
each application. The end objective of the initial 
screening is to match known needs to a pool of 
unknown applicants. 

Once the screening of applications is complete, we will 

test and interview those candidates that appear to come 

closest to our needs. The process includes the use of 

written tests, and structured interviews. Written 

confirmation of previous employment will be obtained 

for the applicants that appears to be potential candidates for employment as well as a criminal background 

investigation. 




Page 63 



Attachment III 
Paee 15 of iy 



The final step in the selection process is a complete physical examination including a drug screen. The objective 
is to ensure that all applicants are physicall y capable of performing the work for which they are hired and are free 
from the effects of drug usage. Applicants able to pass these requirements may be offered employment: 
however, ail employment offers are contingent upon the satisfactory return of written confirmations of past 
employment. A newly hired employee is on probation for the first 90 days of employment. 

With the support of our corporate training department, each transit location can develop a training program that is 
specific to the needs of the local operation. The airport shall review the ShuttlePort/DAJA training program for 
approval before implementation. The training supervisor may utilize our corporate library of over 125 videos on 
all aspects of employee training and will also benefit from the experiences and shared insights learned at our 
other locations. 

Annual in service training will be required inclusive of updating employee handbooks and providing full 
familiarization. ShuttlePort/DAJA will work closely with airport officials and commercial carriers during the 
development of materials. The airport shall sign off on the program prior to implementation. 

Program Guidelines 

All of our training programs currently being utilized emphasize the following areas: 



Company policies, rules and benefits 
Human and passenger relations 
Curbside and staging area procedures 
Accounting and internal controls 
Use of two-way radio 
Fare policies 

Wheelchair lift procedures 
Stress management 
Operating rules and procedures 
Operating procedures for each mode 
Working knowledge of equipment 



Driver and vehicle inspection 

Accident and safety procedures 

Emergency procedures 

Sensitivity training 

First aid/CPR training 

ADA and elderly riders 

Forms and published materials 

Safety 

Organizational information 

Airport Rules and Regulations 

Introduction to airport passenger services 

Diversity Trainine 



Classroom Outline 

ShuttlePort/DAJA provides training material to all trainees prior to classes. 

Orientation And Welcome 

■ Acquaint with aims of ground transportation management system 

■ Motivate pride in being a ShuttlePort employee 

Information On Training 

■ Personnel policies 

■ Pay and benefits while training 

■ Reporting for training 

■ Responsibilities and duties 



Page 64 



Attachment III 
Page 16 oi 19 



Wheelchairs 
Assistance 

■ Special needs videos 

Transporting the physically, mentally and emotionally handicapped 

Epilepsy 

Autism 

First Aid and CPR Training 
Sexual Harassment Training 

Customer Service 

■ Training on Disney Quality Service 

■ Establish unique problems and how to overcome 

■ Establish golden rules 

■ Review environment 

■ Review empowerment of staff 

■ Establish Customer Service monitoring systems 

Vehicle Monitoring Training 

■ The vehicle airport regulations 

■ Baggage assistance 

■ Passenger ingress and egress 

• Wheelchair loading and unloading 

■ Wheelchair locks 

Field Exercises 

* Simulate blind 

■ Simulate wheelchair user 

■ Simulate walkers and crutches 

■ Emergency procedures 

■ Mechanical procedures 



Page 67 

131 



Attachment III 
Paqe 17 of 19 



■ Uniform requirements 

■ Other benefits or coverage - worker's compensation 

Accidents - Incidents 

• Safety 

Know the hazard 
Understand the defense 
Act in time 

■ Reporting an accident 

Injured - names, ages, apparent injuries 
Where removed to. how removed 
Investigated by what agency(s) 
Verbatim statements made by other party 
Names and addresses of witnesses 

■ Hazards at scene 

Avoiding further injuries to injured 

Other traffic 

Location of vehicles in street - warning 

Fuel leaking - fire 

False claims of injury 

■ Procedure at scene of accident 

Remain calm 

Take care of injured 

Secure required information 

Notify supervisor - how serious - help needed 

■ Reasons for complete and accurate report 

Claim may be filed 

Need to decide preventability 

Secure required information 

Contributing factors - weather, road, mechanical 

Analysis to assist in future avoidance 

■ Importance of witnesses 

Help determine facts 

Help to determine cause 

Help to determine possible negligence 

Help to determine contributing factors 

Drill On Filling Out Accident And Incident Report Forms 

Diversity Training 

• Work Place 

■ General Public 

Sensitivity Training 

■ Elderly - their issues and concerns and transportation 

Vision 
Directions 

■ Mental impairment - discuss types and degrees of impairment 

Vision 
Mobility 



Page 66 

132 



Attachment II" 
Pa?e 1 1> o£ 19 



Overview <?/" Training - Indoctrination 

■ Airport facilities 

■ Safety 

■ Customer relations 

■ Operating procedures 

Company Policies And Rules 

* Reporting for work 

Where and how to report 

Assignments 

Late report 

Sickness or emergency 

Discipline 

■ General appearance 

" Dress code, uniform requirements 

■ Policy on hair, sideburns, mustaches, beards 

■ Personal conduct 

■ Employee tools required - accurate watch, pencil/pen. time sheet, name tag 

■ Intra-company communications/bulletins 

Human Relations - Overview 

■ Understanding of self 
" Stress management 

■ Communication 

■ Courtesy 

■ Handling complaints 

Passengers 
Others 

■ Giving information 

■ Introduction to airport passenger services 

■ Unruly or rowdy driver, patron, passenger, crowd 

■ Handling the ill person, elderly, handicapped 

Personnel Benefits 

' Wage structure - straight and overtime rates 

■ Paydays - what days, hours and where 

■ Hospitalization insurance 

Group insurance coverage 
Eligibility and limitations 
When and how to file claim 

■ Life insurance - coverage and limitations 

■ Retirement benefits 

Contributory, non-contributory 
How benefits are determined 
- 401 -k 

■ Credit union 

Eligibility 
Pavroll deduction 



Page 65 



Attachment III 
Page 19 of 19 



Indoctrination 

■ Tour of airport facilities 

■ Curbside and staging area 

■ Company facilities 

Operation Policies And Procedures 
Airport rules and regulations 
General assignments 
Radio communications 
Working knowledge of equipment 
Curbside assignments for all groups 
Staging area assignments for all groups 
Housekeeping 

Airport patron and driver disturbances 
Fare information 
Community information 
Lost and found articles 
General safety 
Public statements 
Forms and published materials 
Accounting and internal controls 
Fiduciary responsibilities 
Cash and other controlled documents 
Secured and limited access areas 
Robbery procedures 
Office break in 

Ticket stock procedures and accountability 
Daily reports & audit procedures 
Key control 
Daily activity reports 
Emergency procedures 
Uniforms 

Written test 



Page 68 



DEC.14'2000 15:32 650 794 6508 



lahdside ops Attachment IV ,0743 p. 002/004 
Page 1 of 2 



The differences between the Year #1 contract end Year #2 contract modification are as follow 3 : 



The term of the Agreement was extended one (1) year to end on November 14, 2R01 
Up to three (3) additional one-year options are available at the discretion of the Al 
Director. For additional Information, please refer to the proposed changes in Sectior 
Term of the Agreement. 



W 



Reports on those performance standards as set forth In Appendix G - Performihce 
Standards are to be included monthly or quarterly with the monthly Invoice. Failu e to 
submit may result in non-payment of the invoice or other contractual penalty until said 
reports are submitted. Contractor must submit any other reports requested by the Ai-port 
within one(1) week from date of request. 

For additional information, please refer to the proposed changes in Section 4 - Sen' 
Contractor Agrees to Perform. 

The total amount of the contract (Year f\ and Year #2) 6hall not exceed a tofel 
$12,761,985. 

The Year #2 budget is specified in Appendix B - Calculation of Charges. Compe 
to Contractor shall conform with the terms of the Agreement, be necessary in ordjaV to 
accomplish the goals and objectives of the Curbslde Management Program, be 
reasonable cost-wise as determined by the Airport Director, and be actual net costs ess 
any refunds, rebates, etc. 

Miscellaneous purchases over $100 require the advance approval of the Airport Dir^cl 
or his designee prior to purchase. 

Gifts for employee-recognition programs require the advance approval of the Alport 
Director or his designee, however no gifts shall exceed $100 per recipient 

The Airport also expressly retains ownership of any goods and services upon termirf; 
of the Agreement. 

Annual Support Services costs shall not exceed that specified in Appendix B. Suppirt for 
Annual Support Services expenditures shall now be included in the monthly invoke for 
review and payment For Year #1, Contractor shall have 30 days upon approval d' the 
Year #2 contract to 6upply support documentation for Annual Support Seivjices 
expenditures in Year#1. A credit from Contractor will be due the City if Contractor 
not provide support documentation or if Contractor did not fully spend the am 
estimated for Annual Support Services. 

For additional Information, please refer to the changes in Section 5 - Compensation 

Contractor shall provide thorough documentation for salaries and benefits pa|ltJ to 
management personnel in addition to those of all other personnel as stated In the Year 
#1 contract Said information is to be due by the 20 lh of the month for the prior nppnth. 
For additional Information, please refer to Section 7 - Payment, Invoice Format 



Section 7 - Personnel includes a reiteration of what was included in the March 12 
Curbside Management Program RFP. For additional information, please refer 
changes in Section 7 - Personnel: 



The address for all invoice payments was changed to National ShuttiePost LLC, 
Treasury Services, Chicago, II 60594-3600. For additional information, please 
the changes In Section 25 - Notices to the Parties. 



CO 



oes 
abnts 



)999 
the 



3S620 
to 



refer 



DEC.14'2000 15:32 650 794 6508 



lands ide ops Attachment IV s0743 p. 003/004 
Page 2 of 1 — 



Contractor shall give a credit to City (Airport) 
scheduled invoice whichever comes first 
resulting from an audit. For additional Information 
28 - Audi! and Inspection of Records. 



or payment within one (1) month or the rlext 
after an overpayment has been discovered 
, please refer to the changes in Sepfi 



Clarifies that City holds title to all offics furnishings and equipment purchased 
Contractor and reimbursed for said purchase by City. Contractor shall provide Ai'bort 
Director with an inventory of such office fuiViishlngs and equipment within thirty (30) lays 
after the Year #2 contract is effective. For additional details, please refer to the cha Tges 
in Section 51c - Office Space and Furnishi igs. 



The City's standard contractual language for 
added as Section 54- Minimum Compensation 



10. 



The City's standard contractual language for Earned Income Credit (EIC) forms 
added as Section 55 - Earned Income Credit Forms. 



11. Appendix A - Description of Services was replaced with a reiteration of the langjgge 



contained in the March 12, 1999 Curbside 



Management Program RFP. 



12. Appendix B - Calculation of Charges was leplaced with the Year #2 budget 



13. 



H. 



Appendix C - Loading Zone Monitor Procedures 
Procedures, Appendix E - Door-to-Docr 
Appendix F - Employee and Subcontractor 
Year #1 contract are now a formal part of tn 



The Contractor's performance standards, 
for not submitting progress reports are set 



J:\DWONG1\121415S.DW1 
Revised: 14-Dec-00 



the Minimum Compensation Ordinance 
Ordinance. 



Appendix D - Taxicab Dispa^her 
Van Curb Coordination Procedures 
Training Program provided as required i 
e Year #2 contract. 



ds well as reporting requirements and penb ties 
forth in Appendix G - Performance Standards. 



;on 



by 



and 
the 



c -t. -.a.™,,,. ., Attachment V 

ScP.ia-aOQC 13:11 650 791 6508 LANDSIDE OPS 1 




San Francisco IntematJonal Airport 

Fax 



rascxacOT 




•>«• y^ 5*nrrooox3xCA 9*128 

Septem ber 18, 2000 / wwwjviooim 

1_ 
To 

Alan Gibson, Budget Analyses Cffica / ^anH Wong. Senior Transpo rtation Planner 

P«x Nutn6w m Nnter 

415.252.0461 6=0.321.6508 

TM Mujk6w ~ WM > r 

415.554.7642x233 650.821.6512 



The fallowing is a bnef synopsis of the history of the Curbside Management Program selection process If 
you need additional In f orm a t i on, please contact ma 

September & October 1998 - Met with the Airport" s ground transportation operators to develop a multi-stage 

deployment of a comprehensive curbside management program encompassing docr-to-door vans 

limousines, scheduled transit and taxicsb operations. The original concept was recommended by an Airoort 

ground transportation consultant r 

December 1998 - Airport Commisskm approved Resolution #98-0321 authorizing the Airport to issue an 

RFP for a contractor to operate the Airports Curbside Management Program. 

March 12. 1999 -Airport staff Issued the RFP. 

April 7. 1999 - Pre-Proposal Conference conducted. 

May 14. iggg - 3 proposals were submitted by the due date (i.e.. CDSNet, Inc.. Pclaris/T7MC Joint 

Venture, and ShutllePort/DAJA Joint Venture). 

June 7, 1999 - Review panel conducted oral interview panels after reviewing the written submittals of all " 

three proposers. Scores submitted to HRC for M6&WBE rating discounts. 

June 25. 1999 - HRC submitted to Airport final scores including MEE/WBE rating discounts. 

S hurtle Port/DAJA was the highest scorer with a cumulative score of 92.2 out of 100. 

July 13. 1999 - Airport Commission approved Resolution 399-0233 authorizing the Airport Director to 

negotiate a contract with ShutflePort/DAJA to operate the Airpcrfs Curbside Management Program. 

September 21. 1999 - Airport Commission approved Resolution ^99-0323 to issue a contract to operate the 

Airports Curbside Management Program to ShuttiePcrt/DAJA. 

November 1, 1999 - CIvQ Service Commission approved said contract in Notice of Action for Contract 

£4079-99/00. 

November 1 5, 1 999 - Contract with ShuttlePort/DAJA became effective for one year with uo to four 

additional one-year options. 

cc: Edwin LsungyAJica Sgourakisfltze Razsnbergs/Chron/File 15S 
Peter Nardaza/Eddie Angeles 



Trie intormaaon crainod m oas ta .mnqt and tr» ac=rnp«T T mg cccancnc. = prr-v^s orta CMoow. Thu orrrrx«car, on O imencea anr, far 

V*. uie at Sie mdvunai or amir/ raiw a«-. if 3>e reotfcr ci riim mm»c;» a nd S» imansoa roccsjra. cr •jw r— imrv, .- 

... -. m.ji — ^ -5€.-. rcacrrs.S's '.£ ££;!v*r 

- => j:<- mtBTCad w=sw. you ore trrrsi ncsitd m« airy ctamraoi. aBMOon or ciying d no ccmmuncmien i> »cv-s. . .. . .. 

n*caiv<Kj no emmun mijui in arror, ,-irrra noaf|f us srmeeJTOn; tr :ese=ncne. S50.754_S)0C 



ffiP-19-2000 TOE 12!(B maBmSQB m m. 650 821 2703 



iluxOiePort/DAJA/SPO 



Ian Francisco UiCarnatiorcil Airport 

K Box 2504S0 

Un Pranclsco. CA 94125-04S9 

feo) 821-STOl 

Ku (WO) 821-2703 


To: 


Dan Wong 


From: 


Darnel Barrz 


Date: 


September 19, 2000 


Re: 


Budget Increase Analysis 




As requested, [ have put Together a page-by-page analysis of all budget increases from year 
one of the contract to year two. If you have any questions act these items, please caH 

Page 1 Management Staffing: 

HR/Tmining Director changed to Assistant GM, S22,100 

Staff Salary Increases (2%) S 6,650 

Page 2 Operations Staffi ng; 

Curbside Managers 

1 . Added one position to maintain 24 hour coverage $45,5 1 

2. Salary increases S5,463 
Taxi Supervisors 

1 . Added two positions 10 cover new IT 1 hours daily 563,457 

2. Wage increases S21J53 
Taxi Dispatchers 

1 . Added 7 positions for personnel not covered 

in original budget - Ncn-SF and Delta S208.615 

2. Added 4 positions for new IT coverage SI 1 9,208 

3. Wage increases S24,ii0 



SZP. 19 '2000 13:46 650__79* 6508 UmUU OPS Attaching VI 

"■'"■HBIWBMI F« * r=a «, ^ 



Lima/Van Loading Zone Surervisars 

I. Wage increases S12,730 

Limo & Loading Zone Moniiors 

1. Reducdon of hours for new FT (Si7.432) 

2. Wage increases io meet Living Wage requirements $42,640 

Page 3 M?.n ^ c;7iCr ft ctencfits : 

1. Health insurance increase 5 V a S1.S41 

2. Other hrneais increase 53.435 

Page 4 Operations Benefits : 

1. Taxi Dispatch 

a. Health insurance increase S% 53L325 

b. Redrernertt plan increase C6J12 
C Workers' Cornp insurance - 7.3% rate 592,927 
i Other - PICA. FVTA. SUTA SoTjIl 

2. Taxi Supervisor 

a. Keaith insurance increase 5% S14,421 
fa. Rcriremeni plan increase 54 734 

c. Workers' Corr.p Insurance - 7.3% rare 516,824 

d. Other -FICA.FLTA, SUTA $7,737 

Page 5 Operations Benefits". 

1 . Limo/Van Losing Zanc Monhcrs 

a Health insurance - increase 67% (higher cost :H.?n 

original budge: S26 220 

b. Other - FICA. FUTA. SUTA Sl^ll 

2. Lime/Van Loading Zone Supterviaors 

a. Health insurance - ircreeec 67% (higher c^st t^=tl 

oririnal budget 57 49 j 



b. Other - FICA. FUTA SUTA 



SI, 140 



Sc?.19'2000 1 3:15 550 794 6508 

SEP-I5-20QQ TUE 12:10 Pfl SHUTTLPQRT 



LANDSIDE OPS 

FAX NO. 65Q 821 2703 



Attachment VI 
>'age 3 of 3 



1. K=ailhinsuraBcs-5%ini== sc 

2. Other -FICA.FUTA.SLTA 
Page 12 En tJnr pent Lcasc/gg S*g£ 

Decrease from year o*» 
Pay 1 1 Other Project Cosg l 

Decrease from ye=r one 
Paac l<i Pricing Smnmagl 

2. AiururiSupportSetvifia-sameg.Wasytsroae 

3. Profit -same 9.15% as year one 



57,364 

.54524 

(550472) 

(540,745) 

525.500 
575,179 
532,470 



140 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Item 11 -File 00-1895 



Note: 



Department: 
Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 

Description: 



This item was continued by the Finance and Labor 
Committee at its meeting of November 29, 2000 to allow 
the Department of the Environment to submit a revised 
proposal for expenditure of reserved funds. 

Department of Environment 

Hearing to request release of reserved Hetch Hetchy 
funds in the amount of $146,244 to be used by the 
Department of Environment to enter into a professional 
services contract ($66,244), and to be work-ordered to the 
Laguna Honda Hospital Replacement Project and the 
California Academy of Sciences Project for energy 
modeling work ($80,000). 

$146,244 

Hetch Hetchy operating funds identified as savings and 
reserved by the Board of Supervisors in the Fiscal Year 
2000-2001 Hetch Hetchy budget. 

In 1999, Hetch Hetchy reorganized and eliminated its 
Bureau of Energy Conservation, an in-house bureau 
responsible for projects to increase energy efficiency 
throughout City and County of San Francisco facilities. 
While Hetch Hetchy continues to oversee energy 
conservation programs for existing City facilities, the 
responsibility for energy efficiency for new City 
construction projects has been shifted to the Department 
of the Environment. The Resource Efficiency Building 
(REB) Ordinance that was approved by the Board of 
Supervisors in May of 1999 (File Nos. 99-0443 and 99- 
0444) requires the Department of Environment to develop 
guidelines for the design and construction of new City 
facilities which are to be energy efficient. Prior to Hetch 
Hetchy's reorganization, the Bureau of Energy 
Conservation had been providing significant support 
towards implementing the REB ordinance. 

During the Finance and Labor Committee's annual 
budget review in June of 2000, the Committee placed 
$146,244 of the proposed FY 2000-2001 Hetch Hetchy 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Budget: 



budget on reserve which was also approved by the full 
Board of Supervisors. The purpose of the reserve was to 
fund the Department of Environment's estimated 
expenditure of $146,244 to hire two Senior Energy 
Specialists. 

Since that time, the Department of Environment has 
revised its plans, and now proposes to enter into a 
personal services contract to support various REB 
projects, and to work order funds to Laguna Honda 
Hospital and the California Academy of Sciences for 
energy modeling work. The Department of Environment's 
revised proposal is explained in the Attachment to this 
report, provided by the Department. 

This request would release the previously reserved 
$146,244 in Hetch Hetchy funds, allowing the 
Department of Environment to fund a personal services 
contract to support various REB projects, and to work 
order funds to the Laguna Honda Hospital Replacement 
Project and the California Academy of Sciences Project for 
energy modeling. 

A summary budget for the requested $146,244 release of 
reserved funds is as follows: 



Item 

Professional Service Contract 

-Designing and implementing energy 

conservation programs 

-Contributing to various REB projects 

Work Orders for Energy Modeling 
-Laguna Honda Hospital 

-California Academy 

Total 



Hours/Rate 


Total 


100 hours @ 




$100/hour 


$10,000 


562 hours @ 




$100/hour 


56,244 


600 hours @ 




$100/hour 


60,000 


200 hours @ 




$100/hour 


20,000 




$146,244 



Comments: 



1. Mr. Cal Broomhead of the Department of Environment 
states that the professional services contract would be 
primarily to assist the Department in providing energy 
conservation consultation to each of 10 REB pilot projects, 
each of which is a new construction, or renovation of an 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



existing structure. According to Mr. Broomhead, those 
projects include construction and/or renovation of: Laguna 
Honda Hospital, the California Academy of Sciences, the 
Golden Gate Park Concourse Authority Parking Garage, 
the proposed Muni maintenance facility at Islais Creek, 
the New Mission Park Clubhouse, Visitacion Valley 
Recreation Center, a new City administration building at 
525 Golden Gate, the Golden Gate Park West End 
Pavilion, the Moscone Convention Center West, and the 
Depax-tment of Environment building at 11 Grove Street. 
Additionally, the proposed personal services contract 
would include other design and implementation of energy 
conservation programs as necessary, as outlined in the 
REB, according to Mr. Broomhead. 

According to Mr. Broomhead, the Department would 
award the proposed professional services contract through 
a Request for Proposal process, to be conducted following 
approval of the proposed release of reserved funds by the 
Board of Supervisors, with a contract to be awarded as 
soon as possible thereafter. 

2. Mr. Broomhead states that the proposed work orders 
to the Laguna Honda Hospital Replacement Project 
($60,000) and the California Academy of Sciences 
($20,000) would enable current contractors on those 
projects to either expand the scope of their current 
contracts, or sub-contract, to include energy modeling 
work. According to Mr. Broomhead, energy modeling 
consists of the development of a mathematical model that 
accurately estimates the energy performance of 
structures. Mr. Broomhead states that these models may 
then be altered to determine the energy efficiency of 
various design options, assisting designers in making 
energy efficient design decisions. 

3. According to Mr. Broomhead, the Department is 
presently working with contractors currently working on 
the Laguna Honda Hospital and California Academy of 
Sciences projects to develop a scope of work, schedule, and 
budget details. Mr. Broomhead states that, once those 
elements have been defined to the satisfaction of the 
Department, the Department of Environment would work 
order the subject reserved funds for the purpose of 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

expanding the scope of current contracts on the Laguna 
Honda Hospital Replacement Project and the California 
Academy of Science Project to include energy modeling, or 
enabling those projects to sub-contract for energy 
modeling services. The existing project contracts would 
be expanded in scope, or sub-contractors would be sought 
following approval of the proposed release of reserved 
funds by the Board of Supervisors, according to Mr. 
Broomhead. 

4. Mr. Broomhead states that the Department based its 
budget for all work on a rate of $100 per hour because 
$100 is the approximate average of current rate estimates 
provided to the Department of Environment by energy 
consultants. 

5. Because the Department of the Environment has not 
conducted a competitive selection process for the $66,244 
in professional services or the $80,000 work order to the 
Laguna Honda Replacement Project and the California 
Academy of Science Project, the Budget Analyst 
recommends that the $146,544 Hetch Hetchy funds 
remain on reserve until the Department can provide the 
Board of Supervisors with contractor details including the 
number of hours and hourly rates. 

Recommendation: Continue to reserve the $146,244 in Hetch Hetchy funds 

designated for the Department of Environment pending 
selection of professional service contractors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 
1 LL 



Attachment 




DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT 

City and County of San Francisco 

Francesca Vietor. Director 



PROPOSAL FOR RELEASE OF FUNDS ON RESERVE 



Background: 

the Environment 
which were work 
the purpose of hiifing 
on energy issues, 
termination of thi 
since these funds 
postions given th 
Supervisor Ammjiano 
services contract 
Efficient Buildin 



The Board of Supervisors has put $146,244 of funding for the Department of 
:>n reserve for the purpose of energy conservation. Originally, these funds, 
ordered from Hetch Hetchy for Energy Conservation, were to be released for 

two civil service employees to work in the Department of the Environment 
These two positions were intended to replace the services lost by the 
: Bureau of Energy Conservation at Hetch Hetchy Water and Power. However, 
are only available this fiscal year, it is not realistic to hire two civil service 
: short-term nature of the positions. Based on preliminary conversations with 

's office, we are requesting that these funds be used for a professional 
and energy modeling design work to support the pilot projects for the Resource 
I Program (REB) by City departments. 



Proposed Allocation 

bid, would be in 
Conservation Manage 
approximately 



The remaining 
of energy modeling 
Academy proj 
work perform 
hourly rate 



jeo 

tied 
:of$l 



FOR ENERGY CONSERVATION 



of Funds: The professional services contract wall be comperitively- 
he amount of 566,244, and managed by the Resource Efficiency and Energy 
r, class 1888. The professional services contract would run for 
year and perform the following tasks: 



Working with the 10 pilot projects selected under the guidelines of the Resource Efficient 
Building Ordjmance on energy conservation programs for each of these projects (556,244) 

• Designing, implementing and promoting the energy conservation programs outlined in the 
Resource Efficient Building Ordinance (510,000) 

S&0 



,000 will be work ordered to two specific REB Pilot Projects for the purpose 
The Laguna Honda Hospital project will cost $60,000 and the California 
will cost 520,000. The energy modeling will be performed by contractors. All 
under the professional services contract and work order will be based on an 
DO per hour. 



IAS 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Item 12 - File 00-2015 



Department: 
Item: 



Description: 



Department of Human Resources (HRD) 

Ordinance implementing Amendment No. 2 to the 1997- 
2001 Memorandum of Understanding between the 
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 
Union No. 6, and the City, by appending a list of past 
practices pursuant to Article VI. C. of the Memorandum of 
Understanding. 

In 1997 the Board of Supervisors approved a 
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the 
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 
No. 6, ("Local No. 6") for the four-year period from July 1, 
1997 through June 31, 2001. The proposed ordinance 
would amend this existing MOU between the City and 
Local No. 6 to include past practices as agreed to by both 
parties. According to Ms. Alice Villagomez of the 
Department of Human Resources (HRD), because the 
proposed amendment codifies existing practices, the 
subject ordinance will not result in additional costs to the 
City, as stated in Attachment I, provided by HRD. The 
current four-year MOU with Local No. 6 includes a 
provision stating that existing practices would be 
reviewed and amended to the existing agreement, 
according to Ms. Villagomez. 

The MOU with Local No. 6 covers 46 classifications, listed 
in Attachment II provided by HRD, comprising a total of 
791 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) positions. Local No. 6 
represents employees in the following City departments: 
Department of Telecommunications and Information 
Services (DTIS), Department of Building Inspection 
(DBI), Water Department, Hetch Hetchy, Department of 
Parking and Traffic (DPT), the Municipal Railway (Muni), 
the Library, Recreation and Park Department (RPD), 
Sheriffs Department, War Memorial, Laguna Honda 
Hospital, the Port and the Airport. 

According to Ms. Villagomez, the proposed Amendment 
No. 2 to the MOU with Local No. 6 contains the following 
existing practices, which are not included in the current 
MOU as approved by the Board of Supervisors in 1997: 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

146 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Workweek, Hours, and Breaks 



• The proposed ordinance specifies the regular 
workweek for employees covered by Local No. 6, which 
varies according to each employee's position and City 
department. 

• Covered employees would receive a 15-minute break 
approximately two hours after the start of the shift 
and approximately two hours before the end of the 
shift. 

• In the event an employee must work through his or 
her shift without taking a regularly scheduled meal 
period (approximately mid-shift), the employee shall 
be entitled to take up to a one-half hour paid meal 
period during the regular work day. 

• All shifts for 8 or 12 hours straight shall include time 
allotted to a paid meal period at approximately mid- 
shift. According to Ms. Villagomez, employees required 
to work 8- or 12-hour straight shifts include those 
unable to leave their workstation because they are 
responsible for overseeing certain machinery. 

• Free meals are provided to covered employees assigned 
to the Sheriffs Department at County Jails Nos. 3,7,8, 
and 9, during unpaid meal breaks, according to Ms. 
Villagomez. 

• The proposed amendment states that reasonable 
preparation and clean-up time is allowed for all 
covered employees, appropriate to the work being 
performed, as determined by a supervisor. 

Safety Practices 

The proposed amendment states: the "City acknowledges 
that, for health and safety reasons," the following crews 
will be staffed as shown below, however, "subject to 
operational needs of the Department, the crew size may 
be less than this number." 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Department 


Number of 

Employees 

per Crew 


Department of Transportation 
Road Call Crews 


2 


Municipal Railway (Muni) 

Overbead Line Division Crews 


4 


Muni Digital Systems 

Platform Sign Change Crews 


3 (day shift) 
2 (swing shift) 


Hetch Hetchy Moccasin & Warnerville 
Shop Line Crews 


3 each 


DTIS — any work relating entrance into 
an underground vault 


2 


Misc. Departments - work on all live 
circuits of 277 volts or greater 


2 


Hetch Hetchy Moccasin Power House & 
Early Intake Division 


3 each 



In addition, the proposed amendment states the following: 

• For Muni's Overhead Line Division, the Department 
shall not assign routine maintenance work during 
moderate to heavy rain conditions. 

• For Muni's Digital Systems Maintenance, employees 
entering into confined spaces must be accompanied by, 
or part of, an authorized cable machinery crew. 

• Upon request, any covered employee working in any 
jail shall be accompanied by a Deputy Sheriff. 

• Covered employees assigned to the Department of 
Public Works (DPW), Water Pollution Control District, 
shall be provided with a shower room, one annual 
physical exam at no charge, free vaccines for hepatitis, 
tuberculosis and/or any other necessary vaccines 
required for exposure to raw sewage. Ms. Villagomez 
advises that such annual physical exams and vaccines 
are currently provided by the San Francisco General 
Hospital. 

• All work practices at the Department of Parking and 
Traffic (DPT) must meet the standards of the 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 
148 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



International Municipal Signal Association and the 
CalTrans Work Zone Safety Regulations. 

The proposed amendment lists the safety equipment, 
protective clothing and uniforms that the City provides 
free of charge to covered employees assigned to certain 
City departments and responsibilities. According to Ms. 
Villagomez, funds for providing such equipment, clothing 
and uniforms are already included in the budgets for each 
respective City department. The proposed amendment 
also specifies the frequency by which employees will 
attend safety meetings, varying according to City 
department and the employee's position. Ms. Villagomez 
advises that these safety meetings would take place 
during an employee's regular shift. 

The City provides covered employees at all Departments, 
except the War Memorial, safe and secure storage 
facilities for personal effects and work clothes (lockers or 
the equivalent). The City also provides storage areas for 
tools provided by the employee and used in the 
performance of the employee's duties. 



Training, Overtime, and Holiday Assignments 

The proposed amendment specifies how new hires will be 
assigned shifts and overtime at Muni, DTIS, the Airport 
and Hetch Hetchy Moccasin Power House and Early 
Intake. The polices vary by City department, however, in 
general, new hires must wait a specified period of time 
before being assigned to work overtime and/or evening 
shifts. 

The proposed amendment also delineates how overtime 
and holiday work will be assigned, as follows: 

Muni 

For employees assigned to Muni's overhead lines, 
regular voluntary overtime will be distributed based 
on seniority. Holiday overtime, which is not voluntary, 
will be assigned on a rotational basis. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Laguna Honda, Hetch Hetchy, Library 

Overtime to be assigned on a voluntary basis, at the 

discretion of supervisor. 

Hetch Hetchy Moccasin Power House and Early Intake 
Overtime will be assigned on a voluntary basis by 
seniority in accordance with seniority lists established 
each year. 

Port. Airport, DPW. Water Department. DTIS 
Overtime will be assigned on a voluntary basis, offered 
first to the employee who has worked the longest on 
the specific job requiring overtime. Thereafter, ' 
assignments will be made at the supervisor's 
discretion. For employees assigned to the Airport's 
Airfield maintenance, overtime will be offered to the 
employee with the least number of accrued overtime 
hours. 

Department of Parking and Traffic 
Overtime assignments, when necessary, for weekends 
and holidays is mandatory, made by rotation using an 
alphabetized list of employees. Weekends are covered 
by one straight 8-hour shift 7:00am — 3:00pm. 

Regular overtime (non-weekend, non-holiday overtime) 
will be offered to employees who have worked the least 
number of overtime hours. Regular overtime is 
generally voluntary unless there are no volunteers, in 
which case, regular overtime may be assigned by 
inverse seniority. 

Recreation and Parks Department 

Overtime will be offered on a voluntary and seniority 

basis. 

Department of Telecommunications and Information 

Services 

Weekend shifts will be filled on a voluntary overtime 

basis and distributed equally among employees. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Use of City Vehicles/Emergency Response 
Supervisors at the Port who are scheduled to be on 
emergency call 6 or more times in a single fiscal year may 
be authorized to take a Port vehicle home to be readily 
available for emergency response. Port supervisors who 
must call employees to respond to after-hour emergencies 
receive a minimum of two hours pay for making calls. 

The Department of Public Works provides shuttle vans 
each regular workday to and from the 24th Street BART 
station and the Cesar Chavez Street Yard or the Water 
Pollution Control Southeast Plant. Ms. Villagomez 
advises that this shuttle service is provided Monday 
through Friday, in the morning and at the end of the day. 

Water Department employees assigned to Millbrae and 
who are temporarily assigned to Sunol report first to 
Millbrae and then travel to and from Sunol on City time 
in City-provided vehicles. Such employees do not report 
directly to Sunol from their homes, because they must 
first pick up the vehicles they need for their work from 
Millbrae, according to Ms. Villagomez. The proposed 
amendment states that "this provision does not address 
the possibility of future permanent assignments to 
Sunol. " 

Parkins 

The proposed amendment states: "Pursuant to the Award 
of Arbitrator Buddy Cohn dated October 1, 1999, the City 
has committed itself to a practice of using its best, good 
faith effort to furnish no-cost employee parking on City- 
controlled property or, when such space is unavailable, to 
obtain free parking elsewhere; but when business needs, 
costs or other legitimate considerations outweigh the 
ability to secure suitable free parking, the City is not 
obligated to acquire it or reimburse its costs." 

According to Ms. Villagomez, City-provided employee 
parking was one of the five practices the City disputed 
and submitted to arbitration. As stated in Attachment III, 
provided by HRD, the arbitrator ruled that free parking 
for covered employees was a past practice. However, the 
arbitrator ruled that the City would not be required to 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



cover the direct costs for employee parking. If existing 
parking is displaced, the City must make a "good faith 
effort" to find replacement parking, but the City is not 
required to provide new parking facilities, according to 

Ms. Villagomez. 

Miscellaneous Conditions of Employment 

In addition, the proposed ordinance outlines for each City 
department: (a) how vacation dates will be assigned for 
covered employees, (b) when applicable, how shifts will be 
assigned, (c) the policies for taking sick leave, and (d) the 
lunch room facilities provided to covered employees. 



Comments: 1. As noted above, the intent of the proposed amendment 

is to enumerate and codify existing practices by 
appending them to the existing MOU with Local No. 6. 
According to Ms. Villagomez and as stated in Attachment 

1, Local No. 6 identified existing practices affecting 
bargaining unit members that were not included in the 
existing MOU with Local No. 6, and HRD researched and 
verified such existing practices. The City entered into a 
tentative agreement with Local No. 6 regarding some of 
the existing practices and submitted five disputed 
practice to arbitration (see Comment No. 2). Ms. 
Villagomez advises that the subject amendment is part of 
a City effort to update all of its collective bargaining 
agreements to identify and include existing practices 
within the already approved MOUs. Ms. Villagomez 
states that all existing practices included in the proposed 
amendment were in existence at least since July 1, 1996, 
or one year before the current MOU went into effect on 
July 1, 1997. Ms. Villagomez advises that Article VI. C. of 
the subject MOU provides for the proposed subject 
inclusion of past practices and defines the criteria for 
selecting past practices. 

2. According to Ms. Villagomez, the five practices listed in 
Attachment III were advanced to arbitration because the 
City disagreed with the bargaining unit's representations 
on a specific matter. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

152 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



3. According to Ms. Pamela Levin of tbe Controller's 
Office, based on HRD's determination tbat the items 
covered by the proposed amendment to the existing MOU 
with Local No. 6 are past practices, there would be no 
additional cost to the City as a result of this MOU 
amendment. As stated previously, according to Ms. 
Villagomez, all of the practices outlined in the proposed 
amendment have been in effect since at least July 1, 1996 
and related expenditures, if any, are funded in the 
appropriate departmental budgets. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Attachment I 
Page 1 of 2 



City and County of San Francisco 




Department of Human Resourc 



AUOREA R. GOURDINE 
HUUAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR 



October 25, 2000 : 

TO: Harvey Rose 

Budget AnaIy,sL, Board of/Supervisors 

FROM: Alice Viilkgimez j* 

Deputy Director, Employes Relations Division 

RE: Amendments ,to various MOUs emimeraring past practices 

These amendments codify long standing past practices funded by existing departmental 
budgetary allocarions. As such, they do not resuli in any additional funding. 

Twenty-two collective bargaining agreements negoriated for the period of July 1,1997 
through June 30, 2001 call for the identification and enumeration of past practices to be 
appended to the master agreement. 

The following language is the referenced provision identical in all of the affected 
agreements: 



PAST PRACTICE 



The parties to this Agreement shall meet for the purpose of enumerating all 
past practices. The parties shall also meet to identify the current Civil 
Service Rules that are arbitrable. For the purposes of this section, a "past 
practice" shall mean either (i) an agreement between the City and the Union 
that- has been in existence for at least one year and that addresses an 
appropriate subject to include in the collective bargaining agreement, or (if) a 
known and well-established course of conduct that has been in existence for 
at least one year and that addresses an appropriate subject to include in the 
collective bargaining agreement. 



Any disputes regarding whether a past practice exists shall be 
submitted to binding arbitration no later than January 1, 1998, except 
that this date may be extended for up to an additional three months if 
requested by either party. Toe parties shall mutually agree to an 
arbitrator, pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement The 
arbitrator's sole authority shall be to determine whether a past 
practice exists, as defined in this section. The arbitrator's decision 
shall be final and binding upon the parties, as provided in Charter 
Section A3.409. 



JAll past practices agreed by the parties to be included in the 
! Agreement shall be appended to the Agreement and approved 
j pursuant to the provisions of Charter Section AS.409, inc!udin° 
; submission for approval by the Beard of Supervisors. AH past 
practices to be included in the Agreement by award shall be 



■•-* Gouqh SS^« • San Frandir.n CI trn''.'" 



Attachment -I 
Page 2 of 2 



appended to the Agreement, subject to implementation pursuant to 
Charter Section A8.409. Thereafter, all alleged violations of 
appended past practices will be subject to the grievance and 
arbitration procedure of the Agreement. 

There shall be no change or modification of any past practice or other understanding 
between the parties (except for those marters governed by the Civil Service Rules excluded 
from arbitration) until the parties reach final agreement on the inclusion of past practices 



into the agreement or 
whichever is later. 



imril the arbitration award is issued pursuant to the provisions herein 
Thereafter, the parties agree that all past practices and other 
understandings between the parties not expressly memorialized and incorporated into this 
Agreement shall no longer be enforceable. 



The City and the I unions began the process of the identification, research, verification, 
confirmation and dnifting of submitted lists of practices in August of 1997. Seventeen of the 
twenty- two unions submitted lists of practices by January 1998. The three month extension 
provided under the past practices provisions was activated and the period was extended to 
April 1, 1998. 

The process to research, verify and determine which of the praences advanced by the unions 
met the criteria and definition of the past practices provision was lengthy in so far that each 
practice had to be verified with all affected City departments and or when a practice only 
had been identified for one City department such practice was then confirmed and then 
codified for that one department 

This is the first set of amendments for the seven subject MOUs that reflect the completion of 
the process. Of the seven subject MOUs, there was one item re l a tin g to work day/ work 
week which was advanced to arbitration by the Glaziers. The Arbitrator ruled in favor of the 
City's posinon and asisuch the practice in dispute is not contained in the list of submissions 
under amendment # 1 to the MOU between the City and Glaziers Union Local No.718. 

The Employes Relations Division is continuing in finalizing the amendments for other 
subject MOUs for- which practices were either advanced to arbitration and or required 
further clarification and revision. 

The process has been a very lengthy one since it involved all affected city departments and 
in some cases specific work sites for each list of practices identified by a union for the 
numerous subject MOUs. 

The enumeration andl codification of working condition practices will be formalized as 
terms and conditions 'of employment appropriately appended to the respective collective 
bargaining agreements with the rafincition of these amendments. 



Attachment II 
Page 1 of 2 



Employee Group Jobcode Listing 



6249 
6250 
6252 
7214 

7216 

7229 

7235 

7238 

7244 

7253 ■ 

7255 

7256 

7257 

7273 

7274 

7275 

7276 

7279- 

7285 

7287 

7308 

7318 

7319 

7329 

7338 

7345 

7363 

7364 

7365 

7371 

7380 

7390 

7408 

7430 

7432 



36 Electrical Workers, Local 6 

Job code Title 

6248 ' Electrical Inspector 

Senior Electrical Inpsector 
Chief Electrical Inspector 
Line Inspector 
Electrical Trust Equip Sprv 
Electrical Trust Shop Sprv 1 
Transmission Line Supervisor 1 



Transit Power Line Sprvl 

Electrician Supervisor 1 

Power Plant Supervisor 1 

Electrical Trust Mech Sprv 1 

Power House Electrician Sprv I 

Electric Motor Repair Sprv 1 

Communication Line Sprvl 

Communications Line Wrk Sprv 2 

Trust Power Line Wrk Sprv 2 

Tclecorrnmmicatioris Tech Supv 

Electrician Supervisor 2 

Power House Elecrncian Sprv 2 

Transmission Line Wrk Sprv 2 

Sprv Electronic Main Tech 

Cable Splicer 

Electronic Maintenance Tech 

Electric Motor Repairer 

I 
Electr Maint Tech Asst Sprv 

Electrical Line Worker 

Electrician 

Power House Electrician 

Power House Operator 

I 
Senior Posver House Operator 

Electrical Transit System Mech 

Electrl Tmst Mech, Asst Sprv 

Welder 

Assistant Power House Operator 

Asst Electronic Main Tech 

Electrical Line Helper 



Bare amine Unit 


Bargaining Sub Unit 


01 


L 


01 


L 


01 


L 


• 01 


L 


01 


L 


01 


L 


01 


L 


01 


L 


01 


L 


01 


L 


01 


L 


01 


L 


01 


L 


01 


L 


01 


L 


01 


L 


01 


L 


01 


L 


01 


L 


01 


• L 


01 


L 


01 


L 


01 


L 


01 


L 


01 


L 


01 


L 


01 


L 


01 


L 


01 


L 


01 


L 


01 


L 


01 


L 


01 


L 


01 


L 


01 


L 


01 


L 



/ ,f.J 



Source: Department of Human Resources 



Attachment II 
Page 2 of 2 



Employee Group Jobcode Listing 



7480 Power Generation .Technician 1 

7482 Power Generation Technician 2 

74 S4 Sr Power Generation Tech 

74S8 Power Generation Supervisor 

7510 Lighting Fixture Maim Worker 

9240 Airport Electrician 

9241 Airport Electrician Supervisor 

9242 Head Airport Electrician 

I 

9354 Elevator and Crane Technician 

9358 Crane Mechanic Supervisor 



01 
01 
01 
01 
01 
01 
01 
01 
01 
01 



<9- °f 



Attachment III 



To: Harvey Rose; 

Board of Supervisors Budget-Analyst 



From Alice Viilagomez 



JV 



Re: Local 6 Past Pi actice Arbitration Issues 

Below Is a chart descriting the issues and decision for the five issues submitted to arbitration 
by Local 6. 

Local 6 Arbitration decision summary - Past Practices 
(IBEW v.; C: ty and County of San Francisco, dated October 1, 1999) 


Issue 




Decision 


Parking Tickets ] 




DBI and DPW Inspectors - 

Ruled in favor of the Union - the practice of 

Department not making employees 

responsible for certain parking tickets issued 

in the course of employment is a past 

practice. Parties agreed not to include in the 

MOU. 


Rents I 




The rental rate for employees who 
voluntarily live on City-owned property at 
Hetch Hetchy is not a past practice. Any 
dispute is a landlord/tenant issue, not an 
employer/employee issue. 


Workweek / Workday 




Non-Muni - Ruled in favor of the Union. 
Existing shifts frozen - Paragraph 161 locks 
in shifts and overtime provisions, except for 
Muni. (Local 6 may agree to modify, must 
meet and confer). 

Muni - Full discretion to modify with meet 
and confer based on Muni departmental 
MOU. 


Sunol Travel 




Ruled in favor of the Union. 
For temporary assignment to Sunol - 
employees report first to MiUbrae, then 
travel to and from Sunol on City time- 


Parking 




Ruled in favor of the Union, but modified. 
A past practice, but no guarantee of "free 
parking." City will use "best efforts" to find 
free parking when existing parking is 
displaced, but will not provide a new facility 
or cover direct costs for parking. 















158 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Item 13 - File 00-2055 

Department: 

Item: 



Description: 



Comments: 



Municipal Transportation Agency (MTA) 

Resolution establishing compensation for the Municipal 
Transportation Agency Board of Directors commencing on 
August 1, 2000 in the amount of $300 for each meeting 
attended, not to exceed $10,800 per Fiscal Year. 

Charter Section VIIIA, added to the Charter by voter 
approval of Proposition E in November of 1999, states 
that Directors of the Municipal Transportation Agency 
shall "receive reasonable compensation for attending 
meetings of the Agency which shall not exceed the 
average of the two highest compensations paid to 
members of any board or commission with authority over 
a transit system in the nine Bay Area Counties". 
Presently, members of the Board of Directors of the 
Municipal Transportation Agency receive compensation of 
$100 per month, or $1,200 per year. 

In January of 2000, the MTA surveyed twenty-two 
agencies that provide either city bus service or 
countywide bus service. Ten agencies responded. The 
average of the two highest compensations is $900 per 
month, or $10,800 per year, as shown in the Attachment 
to this report 1 . 

The proposed resolution would set compensation for 
Directors of the MTA of $300 per meeting, not to exceed 
$10,800 per year. 

1. Mr. Robert Bryan of the City Attorney's Office advises 
that Proposition E does not specify what entity has 
authority to approve the proposed compensation level for 
Muni Directors. Mr. Bryan notes, however, that final 
approval of any change in pay rate, unless otherwise 
specified in the City Charter, must be approved by the 
Board of Supervisors. Thus, Board of Supervisors 
approval will satisfy the legal requirements of Charter 



1 The attachment shows that BART and Santa Rosa City Bus Transit agencies pay their Board 
members $1,000 and $800 per month, respectively. The average of these two highest paying transit 
agencies is $900 per month, or $10,800 per year. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Section VIIIA for official approval of the proposed 
compensation rate for Muni Directors, advises Mr. Bryan. 

2. The current pay for Class 0114 MTA Directors is a flat 
rate of $100 per month, or $1,200 per year. The proposed 
resolution would increase the maximum pay per Muni 
Director to $900 per month, or $10,800 per year. 
Approving this proposed resolution would result in an 
increase of the maximum allowable compensation for 
members of the MTA Board of Directors by $800 per 
month, or $9,600 per year, for each of the seven MTA 
Directors for a total of $67,200 2 . 

3. According to Ms. Roberta Boomer of the MTA, the 
MTA schedules two regular meetings per month, or 24 
meetings per year. However, for a number of reasons, a 
few meetings each year are cancelled. Additionally, the 
MTA Directors periodically schedule meetings outside the 
bimonthly, regularly scheduled meetings, as 
circumstances require. According to Ms. Boomer, 
meetings are cancelled and convened outside the regular 
bimonthly meeting schedule with roughly equal 
frequency. Thus, according to Ms. Boomer, the average 
number of meetings conducted each year is expected to be 
approximately 24. 

Since the MTA Directors began meeting in March of 2000, 
the MTA has conducted 17 regularly scheduled meetings, 
and four special meetings, for an average of 2.3 meetings 
per month. Ms. Boomer projects that at the end of June, 
2001, the MTA Directors will have met 26 times in FY 
2000-2001. The projected increased cost for FY 2000-2001 
from the effective date of August 1, 2000 through June 30, 
2001 is $44,800, according to Ms. Boomer 3 . Ms. Boomer 
states that more special meetings were required this year 



2 Ms. Boomer indicates that virtually every meeting is attended by all seven Directors. 

3 In FY 2000-2001, one meeting was held in July of 2000 (prior to the effective date of August 1), and 
25 meetings are projected to be held during the remainder of FY 2000-2001 (subsequent to the 
effective date of August 1). Thus, the increased cost of the proposed compensation rate consists of 
the proposed rate for MTA Directors for the 25 meetings expected to be held during the 11 months of 
August 2000 through June 2001 ($300 per Director per meeting x 7 Directors x 25 meetings, or 
$52,500) less the current compensation rate for those same 11 months ($100 per Director per month 
x 7 Directors x 11 months, or $7,700), for a total expected increased cost of $44,800. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

than expected, and that she still expects the average year 
of operations to consist of approximately 24 meetings. 

4. Based on the MTA's anticipated total of 24 meetings 
per year and the proposed compensation level of $300 per 
meeting, per Director, the total cost of the proposed 
change in compensation for Muni Directors would be 
approximately $50,400. This cost would represent an 
increase of approximately $500 per month per Muni 
Director, or $6,000 annually per Director for a total 
increase of $42,000 per year for all seven members of the 
Board of Directors. However, if each MTA Director were 
to receive the maximum annual compensation of $10,800 
per year, the increased cost would grow from $42,000 
annually to $67,200 annually, as shown in the table 
below. 

Maximum 
Compensation 
Total Compensation Based on 36 or 
Current Based on 24 More Meetings 

Compensation Meetings per Year Per Year 

Compensation Per Meeting 
for Each Director S100 S300 S300 

Maximum Annual 
Compensation Per 
Director 1,200 7,200 10,800 

Total Cost for Seven 
Directors 8,400 50,400 75,600 

Increase over Current Total 
Expenditures S - S 42,000 S 67,200 



5. According to Ms. Boomer, Muni did not set aside funds 
in its FY 2000-2001 budget for increased compensation for 
Muni Directors. However, Ms. Boomer notes that the 
expected increased cost of $44,800 for compensating Muni 
Directors for attending 26 meetings in FY 2000-2001 
would be absorbed within the MTA's FY 2000-2001 
budget. Additionally, Ms. Boomer states that, if the 
Board of Supervisors approves the proposed rate of 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

compensation for Muni Directors, Muni would include the 
resulting increased compensation costs in its FY 2001- 
2002 base-line budget. 

6. The proposed resolution would establish new 
compensation for Muni Directors beginning August 1, 
2000. Therefore, the proposed resolution should be 
amended to provide for retroactivity. Ms. Boomer states 
that, while Muni Directors have not been compensated at 
the new proposed rate, they would be reimbursed 
retroactively to August 1, 2000, should the Board of 
Supervisors approve the proposed resolution. 

7. The attachment to this report, provided by Muni, 
contains information regarding the survey of Bay Area 
transportation agencies conducted by Muni. 

Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed resolution to provide for 

retroactivity (see Comment No. 6). 

2. Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy matter 
for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Attachment 



TRANSIT AGENCY 



AC Transit 



BART 

Contra Costa County 
Transit Authority 

Golden Gate Bridge Board 



PAY PER MAXIMUM PER RESTRICTIONS/ 
MEETING MONTH/YEAR STRUCTURE 



S100 



S50 



Joint Powers Board (Caltrain) S 1 00 



Wheels (Livermore-Amador) S 50 



5500/mo 

SlOOO/mo 
S100 

$5,000/yr 

S400/mo 



Petaluma Transit 


S 5 




SamTrans 


$100 


$400/mo 


Santa Rosa CityBus 




$800/mo 


TriDelta Transit 


$75 


$225/mo 


Santa Clara VTA 


S50 


$300/mo 



Includes attendance at board meetings 
and days spent engaged in district 
business 

Attendance required at all board meetings. * 

Attendance required at one board/ 
committee meeting 

Board President receives a maximum 
of$7,500 



The city council oversees the agency 
The mayor receives $10 per meeting 

Includes board and committee meetings 

The city council oversees the agency. The 
Mayor receives $900 



Includes board and committee meetings 
Travel to special meetings reimbursed 



*If members fail to attend scheduled board meetings, that member is compensated at the rate of 

$100 per boardVcomrnittee meeting with a maximum paid of $500 in a calendar month. $100 is 

deducted for failure to attend committee meetings on which they serve. 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Item 14 - File 00-2048 

Department: 

Item: 



Background: 



Public Utilities Commission (PUC) 

Resolution approving the San Joaquin River Group 
Authority Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement and 
Division Agreement and authorizing the President and 
General Manger of the Public Utilities Commission to 
execute these agreements on behalf of the City and 
County of San Francisco. 

In 1995, the State Water Resources Control Board 
adopted the Water Quality Control Plan of the San 
Francisco Bay/San Joaquin Delta Estuary ("the State 
Plan") in an effort to protect salmon and other wildlife by 
setting standards for chemical quality and the amount of 
water flowing in the San Joaquin River and its 
tributaries. According to Mr. Michael Carlin, the Water 
Resources Planning Manager for the Public Utilities 
Commission (PUC), the State Water Resources Control 
Board noted at the time that implementation of the State 
Plan could affect the water rights of more than 500 
parties, including San Francisco's senior rights to divert 
water from the Tuolumne River, a tributary of the San 
Joaquin River. Therefore, the manner in which the State 
Water Resources Control Board implemented the 1995 
State Plan could substantially impact the City's water 
supply. 

In order to implement the 1995 State Plan while 
protecting the involved parties' water rights, Federal and 
State agencies, major water rights holders in the San 
Joaquin River basin, and other stakeholders (including 
the City) jointly created a 12-year San Joaquin River 
Agreement (the River Agreement). The Board of 
Supervisors approved the City's participation in the River 
Agreement on July 31, 2000 (File 00-1136). The purpose 
of the River Agreement is to: 

• Protect salmon and other wildlife by setting standards 
for water chemical quality and the amount of water 
flowing in San Joaquin River and its tributaries. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

• Authorize the Vernalis Adaptive Management 
Program (VAMP) to study the effect of those standards 
on salmon habitat conservation. 

While the River Agreement does not require the City to 
release any of its stored water or reduce the amount of 
water the City is permitted to collect from the Tuolumne 
River 1 , the River Agreement does obligate the City to help 
fund the VAMP study of salmon conservation in the San 
Joaquin River. According to Mr. Carlin, the total cost of 
the 12-year VAMP study is estimated to be $4,800,000 
and will be funded jointly by the different parties to the 
subject agreement. Of that amount, the River Agreement, 
as approved by the Board of Supervisors, obligates the 
City to pay a total of $150,000, or $12,500 per year for the 
12 years of the Agreement, from August of 2000 to August 
of 2012. Therefore, the City would fund 3.1 percent 
($150,000) of the entire $4,800,000 12-year VAMP study. 

Description: Under the subject resolution, the City would join the 

seven members of the San Joaquin River Group Authority 
established in 1996 to administer the River Agreement. 
The City's participation as the eighth member of the 
Authority would be achieved through signing two further 
agreements: 

• The San Joaquin River Group Authority Joint Exercise 
of Powers Agreement (the Joint Powers Agreement). 

• A corresponding Division Agreement. 

Under the Joint Powers Agreement , which Ms. Ellen 
Levin of the PUC states would be a 40-year commitment, 
the Joint Powers Authority is responsible for (a) 
investigating, planning, monitoring, controlling, 
regulating, and mitigating the impacts of water projects 
on the fish and wildlife resources of the San Joaquin 
River and the Bay-Delta Estuary, and (b) investigating, 



Whole other water jurisdictions party to the subject Agreement have agreed to release specific 
amounts of water over the next 12 years in order to meet goals set in the Agreement for the amount 
of water flowing in the San Joaquin River and its tributaries, the Agreement does not require the 
City to release any additional water because, if the City did release any water, the City would not be 
able to meet customer water demand during times of shortage. As a result, the City will not receive 
any of the $4,000,000 in Federal and State compensation funds which have been made available to 
those jurisdictions which do release water under the terms of the River Agreement. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 
165 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

planning, funding, and constructing additional water 
supply projects such as off-stream and ground water 
storage, conjunctive use 2 , conservation, and water 
marketing to meet flows for fish and wildlife or for the 
needs of member agencies. The other seven signatories to 
the Joint Powers Agreement are: 

• Merced Irrigation District. 

• Modesto Irrigation District. 

• Oakdale Irrigation District. 

• South San Joaquin Irrigation District. 

• Turlock Irrigation District. 

• Friant Water Users Authority, a California Joint 
Powers Authority consisting of 25 public water 
agencies. 

• San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water 
Authority, a California Joint Powers Authority 
consisting of two public water agencies and two 
mutual water companies. 

The Division Agreement is the agreement between all the 
San Joaquin River Group Authority members which 
determines each year the volume of water to be provided 
by each member to meet the VAMP water flow 
requirements, and the priority order in which each 
member must release the volume of water required from 
it. Each San Joaquin River Group Authority member is 
compensated according to the volume of water prescribed 
by the River Agreement. According to Ms. Levin, 
although San Francisco is not obliged to provide any 
water, it is a party to the Division Agreement in order to 
clearly state that San Francisco does not have to 
contribute any water. 

Comment: In addition to the City's contribution of $150,000 to the 

VAMP study approved under the River Agreement, Ms. 
Levin states that the City's participation in the Joint 
Powers Agreement is likely to involve the following costs: 

• $50,000 to $60,000 annually for San Joaquin River 
Group Authority administrative and overhead costs. 



2 "Conjunctive use" refers to the use of a ground water basin for storage of surface water which is pumped into the 

basin and held there until needed for future use. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

166 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



This sum is one-eighth of the Authority's total 
anticipated annual administrative and overhead costs. 
One-eighth of the costs of special studies. Ms. Levin 
notes that the San Joaquin River Group Authority has 
been successful in obtaining grant money for such 
studies which reduces San Joaquin River Group 
Authority members' contributions. Furthermore, there 
is a clause in the Joint Powers Agreement which 
allows San Joaquin River Group Authority members to 
exclude themselves from projects if they do not wish to 
participate. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

167 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Item 15 - File 00-2047 

Department: 

Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Sheriff 

Hearing to consider the release of reserved funds for the 
Sheriffs Department in the amount of $1,379,072 to fund 
overtime expenditures. 

$1,379,072 

Sheriffs Department FY 2000-2001 General Fund Budget 

The Sheriffs Department FY 2000-2001 General Fund 
budget includes budgeted overtime expenditures of 
$3,319,370. The Finance and Labor Committee placed a 
total of $1,379,072 of this amount on reserve, leaving 
$1,940,298 available for expenditure. 

The table below provides a summary of overtime spending 
to date and projected spending for FY 2000-2001, as well 
as spending to date and projections for all Sheriffs 
Department General Fund Salary and Fringe Benefit 
accounts based on the Controller's payroll records. 



Controller's Projection - Sheriffs Department General Fund Expenditures for 
Overtime and total Salaries and Fringe Benefits through November 10,2000 



Overtime 

All Salaries and Fringe 
Benefits Including 
Overtime 



FY 2000-2001 
Budget 



Actual 

Expenditures 

Through Pay 

Period Ending 

11/10/2000 



Projected 
Expenditures Projected Surplus 
Through July 30, (Deficit) 

2001 * 



$3,319,370 $1,987,838 $5,670,395 $(2,351,025) 

60,796,938 23,209,296 63,243,649 (2,446,711) 



Projection based on spending at the level of the pay period ending 
11/10/2000 for the remainder of the Fiscal Year. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

168 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



As summarized in the table above, the Controller's latest 
projection report for salary and fringe benefit expenditures 
(including overtime) shows that: 

• As of the pay period ending November 10, 2000, the Sheriffs 
Department has incurred General Fund overtime 
expenditures of $1,987,838. 

• Through November 10, 2000 (or 9.5 of 26.0 pay periods in FY 
2000-01) the Sheriffs Department has already expended 59.9 
percent of its total overtime appropriation of $3,319,370, and 
102.5 percent of its available, unreserved overtime funding of 
$1,940,298. 

• Based on overtime expenditures incurred during the pay 
period ending November 10, 2000, the Controller's projection 
indicates that the Sheriffs Department will spend a total of 
$5,670,395 on overtime which is 70.8 percent or $2,351,025 
more than the Department's total FY 2000-01 overtime 
appropriation of $3,319,370. 

• For all Salaries and Fringe Benefit Expenditures, including 
Overtime, the Controller's projection indicates that the 
Sheriffs Department will incur total expenditures of 
$63,243,649 in FY 2000-2001, which is $2,446,711 or 4.0 
percent more than the FY 2000-2001 budget amount of 
$60,796,938. 

• However, the Sheriffs Department currently projects that 
deficit spending rates will decrease over the remaining pay 
periods of the Fiscal Year, resulting in a projected deficit for 
overtime of $1,759,730. For all Salaries and Fringe Benefits 
(including overtime) the Sheriffs Department projects a 
deficit of $1,911,919. (See Comment 1). 

Based on the data summarized above, it is therefore likely that 
the Sheriffs Department will require a supplemental 
appropriation in FY 2000-2001 in the amount of at least 
$1,911,919 which is primarily made up of the Department's 
projected overtime deficit of $1,759,730. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

169 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

The Sheriffs projected overtime deficit of $1,759,730 is $591,295 
less than the Controller's projection shown on the previous page 
because it takes into account expected reduced overtime 
spending as Sheriffs Deputies now in training are assigned to 
full duty in the second half of the fiscal year. Total overtime 
spending projected for FY 2000-2001 by the Sheriffs 
Department is $5,079,100. 

In a memorandum to the Finance Committee dated November 
21, 2000, the Sheriff requests that the Committee release 
$1,379,072 in previously reserved overtime funds. The 
memorandum attributed high overtime spending through the 
first 8.5 pay periods of FY 2000-01 to a structural staffing deficit 
of 90 Uniformed positions. According to the Sheriffs 
memorandum, Department overtime could be significantly 
reduced, but not eliminated if the following 90 positions were 
added to the Sheriffs Department budget: 

• Five Deputy Sheriffs for prisoner transportation to 
San Francisco General Hospital when prisoners are 
injured and prisoner supervision at the SFGH; 

• 20 Deputy Sheriff training positions to add funding to 
account for academy or other basic training 
requirements; 

• 15 Deputy Sheriffs for City Hall security that is now 
staffed entirely on overtime; 

• 50 Deputy Sheriffs to backfill Deputy Sheriffs on 
personal or disability leave instead of expending 
overtime for this purpose. 



Comments: 1. The Sheriffs projected FY 2000-2001 deficit of $1,911,919 

is comprised of the following elements: 

Projected Surplus 
Expenditure Object (Deficit) 

Permanent Salaries ($529,098) 

Temporary Salaries (46,732) 

Premium Pay (15,765) 

Overtime (1,759,730) 

Holiday Pay (83,339) 

Fringe Benefits 522.745 

Total FY 2000-01 Deficit ($1,911,919) 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

170 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



2.1n May of 2000, the Sheriff received approval of a FY 1999- 
2000 supplemental appropriation of $4,695,097 which included 
new funding for overtime of $3,304,981. The Sheriff expended a 
total of $5,855,503 for overtime in FY 1999-2000. However, 
$617,796 of that total represented court overtime expenditures 
for the Sheriff which was paid for by a transfer of Trial Court 
Funds, resulting in net General Fun overtime expenditures of 
$5,237,707 in FY 1999-2000. The Sheriffs projected net General 
Fund overtime spending of $5,079,100 in FY 2000-2001 is 
approximately 3.0 percent less than actual overtime spending in 
FY 1999-2000. 

3. Presently, the Sheriffs Department has 43 new Deputy 
Sheriff recruits in the final stages of their basic training. 
Beginning in January of 2001, most of these Deputy Sheriff 
positions will be assigned to the County Jails, the units 
responsible for the greatest amounts of overtime spending 
during the first half of FY 2000-2001. Once these personnel are 
assigned to full duty, overtime spending is expected to decrease 
by approximately $30,000 per pay period for the balance of the 
Fiscal Year according to Ms. Jean Mariani. 

4. Since the July 1, 2000, the Sheriffs Department has hired 
43 Deputy Sheriffs and 36 have left the Department. For the 
remainder of FY 2000-2001, the Department estimates that 
approximately 20 more Deputy Sheriffs will leave the 
Department and that 26 more will be hired. Therefore, for the 
entire fiscal year, the Sheriffs Department will have hired 69 
new Deputy Sheriffs while 56 will have left the Department 
(based on current estimates), resulting in a net increase of 13 
filled positions. Currently, the Department has 48 vacant sworn 
Deputy Sheriff positions. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

171 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

5. As noted above, according to the Sheriffs memorandum 
dated November 21, 2000, Department overtime could be 
significantly reduced, but not eliminated if 90 new Deputy 
Sheriff positions were added to the Sheriffs Department budget. 
The Budget Analyst notes that the total salary costs, premium 
pay and fringe benefits for 90 such positions would be 
approximately $6.5 million annually, or approximately $1.4 
million more annually than all overtime expenditures projected 
by the Sheriffs Department for the current fiscal year. Ms. 
Mariani notes however, that the addition of 90 new Deputy 
Sheriff positions would also substantially eliminate the accrual 
of compensatory time by sworn employees, thus reducing the 
future liability of potential overtime expenditures caused by 
absences due to the use of such compensatory time. 

Recommendation: Approve the requested release of $1,379,072 in reserved 
overtime funds. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

172 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Item 16 - File 00-2132 

Department: 

Item: 



Source of Gift: 
Value of Gift: 
Description: 



Budget: 



Comment: 



Aging and Adult Services 

Resolution authorizing the Director of Aging and Adult 
Services to accept and expend a gift from the San Francisco 
Hospital Council, acting through Health Plus Services, in 
the amount of $37,000 for creation of a liaison program 
between the Public Guardian and hospitals that are 
members of the San Francisco Hospital Council. 

San Francisco Hospital Council 

$37,000 

The proposed resolution would authorize the acceptance of 
a gift in the amount of $37,000 from the San Francisco 
Hospital Council to fund a 0.5 FTE Health Worker position 
at the Department of Aging and Adult Services, Office of 
the Public Administrator/Public Guardian. This position 
would act as a liaison between hospitals that are members 
of the San Francisco Hospital Council, as shown in the 
Attachment, and the San Francisco Public Guardian. The 
liaison would help guide hospital discharge planners 
through State conservatorship law, evaluate patients to 
determine the most appropriate program for referral once 
patients are released from a member hospital, and help 
expedite the necessary court filings. 

The budget for the subject gift, provided by the Department 
of Aging and Adult Services, is as follows: 



Personnel (0.5 FTE, Health Worker rV-LT) 
Fringe Benefits (@24%) 
Field Expenses 
Equipment 

TOTAL 



$27,820 
6,677 
1,103 
1.400 

$37,000 



According to Dr. Sandra Nathan of the Department of 
Aging and Adult Services, the subject gift would fund a 
0.5 FTE Health Worker rV for the limited term of 
January 1, 2001 through June 30, 2001. The 0.5 FTE 
position would terminate if the Department did not 
receive additional funding from the San Francisco 
Hospital Council. According to Mr. John Clark of the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGETf ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

December 20, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Department of Aging and Adult Services, the Department 
expects to fill this position by the third week in January. 
Dr. Nathan states that the City will not incur any costs as 
a result of the subject gift. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



c^ 



Harvey M. Rose 



Supervisor Yee 
Supervisor Bierman 
President Ammiano 
Clerk of the Board 
Controller 
Steve Kawa 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

174 




Attachment 



City and County of San Francisco 
Public Administrator - Public Guardian 

Ricardo Hernandez 

Public Administrator-Public Guardian 

Linda Samson 

Assistant Public Administrator-Assistant Public Guardian 



Memo 



To: Ms. Anna Weinstein 

Budget Analyst's Office 

San Francisco Board of Supervisors 

From: Mr. Ricardo Hernandez 

San Francisco Public Administrator/Public Guardian 

Re: $37,000 Gift to the Department of Aging and Adult 

Services from the San Francisco Hospital Council 

Date: December 13, 2000 



The following is a listing of all the San Francisco Council hospitals: 

(1) Laguna Honda Hospital 

(2) St. Luke's Hospital 

(3) St. Mary's Hospital 

(4) St. Francis Hospital 

(5) Kaiser Medical Center of San Francisco 

(6) U.C. San Francisco Medical Center 

(7) California Pacific Medical Center 

(8) San Francisco General Hospital 

(9) Veteran Administration Medical Center of San Francisco 

(10) Jewish Home for the Aged Hospital 

(11) Chinese Hospital. 

All of the above hospitals will participate in the program with the exception of 
the Jewish Home for the Aged Hospital and Chinese Hospital. 



875 Stevenson Street, Room 260, San Francisco, California 94103 
Principal Number (415) 554-5055 Fax Number (415) 554-5026 



0.35V 



z-j/co 



rv^k^x\ City Hal1 

/>/ J^wSF^VA Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place. Room 244 
BOARD of SUPERVISORS "L^^S'F ) I San Francisco 94102-4689 

W^^fe^ilW-*/ Tel. No. 554-5184 

ytfOMsMMW*/ Fax No. 554-5163 

VS^Sh^Sn^ TDD/TTY No. 544-5227 

2JOi 

^NOTICE OF CANCELLED MEETINGS 

^FINANCE AND LABOR COMMITTEE 
SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the meetings of the Finance and Labor Committee 
scheduled for Wednesday, December 27, 2000, and Wednesday, January 3, 2001 , at 
10:00 a.m., at 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 263, City Hall, San Francisco, 
California, have been cancelled. 



Gloria L. Young, Clerk of the Board 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

DEC 2 2 2C30 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Cancelled Meeting Notice/Ad 1/21/00 



FINANCE AND LABOR COMMITTEE 
S.F. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

CITY HALL, ROOM 244 

1 DR. CARLTON GOODLETT PLACE 

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-4689 

IMPORTANT HEARING NOTICE!!! 



41 Library 

100 1 arkin Street Govt Information Center 



2^